Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/christsteachingcOOgigo 


CHRIST'S  TEACHING  CONCERNING 
DIVORCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING 

CONCERNING 

DIVORCE 

IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

AN  EXEGETICAL  STUDY 


REV.  FRANCIS  E.  GIGOT,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Sacred  Scripture  in  St.  Joseph's  Seminary,  Yonkers,  N.  Y. 
Author  of  Several  Works  Introductory  to  the  Study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures 


New  York  Cincinnati  Chicago 

BENZIGEK  BROTHERS 

PRINTERS  TO  THE  I PUBLISHERS  OF 

HOLY  APOSTOLIC  SEE  | BENZIGER’S  MAGAZINE 


1912 


mm  ©bstat 


Rev.  REMY  LAFORT,  D.D. 

Censor  Librorum 


Umpdmatut 


JOHN  CARDINAL  FARLEY 

Archbishop  of  New  York 


New  York,  December  17,  1911 


l 38963 


Copyright,  1912,  by  Benziger  Brothers 


Emtnenttssimo 

Sanctae  IRomanae  Eccteslae 

CarDtnaU 

3oanni  /».  Jfarlej?,  2>.D., 

Iboc  Wolumen 

<3rati60imo  flMlseimoque  flnimo 
ITnscribttur 


2Hb  auctore 


PREFACE 


HE  present  Exegetical  Study  was  begun 


several  years  ago.  It  was  undertaken  with 
the  intimate  conviction  that  a thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  earliest  documents  of  Christianity 
would  supply  a clear  vindication  of  the  indissol- 
uble nature  of  Christian  marriage,  as  distinctly 
maintained  by  the  living  tradition  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  solemnly  proclaimed  by 
the  Council  of  Trent.1  With  this  in  view,  the 
writer  has  examined  the  various  passages  of  the 
sacred  books  of  the  New  Testament  which  set 
forth  Christ’s  Teaching  regarding  divorce.  He 
has  pursued  his  study  of  these  passages  on 
strictly  scientific  lines,  using  every  means  at  his 

1 “ If  any  one  saith,  that  the  Church  has  erred,  in  that  she  has 
taught,  and  doeth  teach,  in  accordance  with  the  evangelical  and 
apostolical  doctrine,  that  the  bond  of  matrimony  cannot  be  dis- 
solved on  account  of  the  adultery  of  one  of  the  married  parties; 
and  that  both,  or  even  the  innocent  one  who  gave  not  occasion  to 
the  adultery,  cannot  contract  another  marriage,  during  the  life- 
time of  the  other;  and  that  he  is  guilty  of  adultery,  who,  having 
put  away  the  adulteress,  shall  take  another  wife,  as  also  she,  who, 
having  put  away  the  adulterer,  shall  take  another  husband;  let 
him  be  anathema.”  (Concil.  Trident.,  Sessio.  XXIV,  can.  vii.) 


6 


PREFACE 


disposal  to  ascertain  the  exact  meaning  of  Our 
Lord’s  words  concerning  the  sacred  character 
and  binding  force  of  the  marriage  tie.  And  the 
undoubted  result  of  his  inquiry  is  to  the  effect, 
that  Christ’s  Law  condemns  as  adulterous  remar- 
riage after  separation  of  husband  and  wife  who 
have  consummated  their  valid  conjugal  union. 

The  volume  opens  with  an  Introductory  Chap- 
ter which  gives  in  a summary  manner  the  discus- 
sion and  conclusions  contained  in  the  body  of  the 
work.  Although  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
reader,  such  summary  will  prove,  it  is  hoped,  a 
useful  guide  through  the  close,  and  at  times 
technical,  discussion  of  texts,  which  is  found  in 
the  following  chapters.  Of  these  chapters,  sev- 
eral (chaps,  ii-vi)  have  already  appeared  in  the 
pages  of  the  “ New  York  Review.”  They  are 
now  reproduced  with  but  slight  modifications, 
mostly  entailed  by  the  adaptation  of  their  text 
to  the  form  which  has  been  adopted  for  the 
remaining  chapters  of  the  work.  The  other 
chapters  (chaps,  vii-ix)  are  devoted  to  a close 
study  of  the  passage  of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel 
(xix,  3-12)  which  has  afforded  most  difficulty  to 
Catholic  theologians  and  exegetes,  and  which  has 
been  the  main  reason  for  non-Catholic  scholars 
to  assert  that  Christ  authorized  the  practice  of 


PREFACE 


7 


divorce  for  the  cause  of  a consort’s  unfaithful- 
ness. The  two  Appendices  which  follow  are 
meant,  each  in  its  own  way,  to  complete  the  dis- 
cussion of  St.  Matthew’s  xix,  3-12.  Next  comes 
the  usual  form  of  a Jewish  bill  of  divorce,  .as 
likely  of  interest  to  the  reader.  The  subjoined 
Bibliography  gives  only  the  principal  works  con- 
nected with  the  general  question  at  issue.  The 
volume  concludes  with  three  Indices  by  means  of 
which  the  topics  treated,  the  Scriptural  passages 
examined  or  referred  to,  and  the  Jewish  authori- 
ties quoted  or  mentioned,  will  easily  be  found. 

The  writer  avails  himself  of  this  opportunity 
to  express  his  lasting  gratitude  to  His  Eminence, 
the  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  New  York,  who  has 
repeatedly  encouraged  the  preparation  of  the 
present  volume,  and  graciously  allowed  that 
when  finished,  the  work  should  be  dedicated  to 
him. 

St.  Joseph's  Seminary, 

December  8,  1911. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface  5 

CHAPTER 

I. — Introductory  13 

A Summary  of  the  discussion  and  conclusions 
set  forth  in  the  present  volume. 

II. — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 

in  St.  Mark  X,  2-12 43 

In  His  public  discussion  with  “ Pharisees  ” 
concerning  divorce  Our  Lord  rejects  the  lawful- 
ness of  divorce  altogether,  after  proving  to  His 
adversaries  that  His  doctrine  is  in  agreement 
with  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  is  required  by  God’s 
will  “ from  the  beginning.” — In  His  private  con- 
versation thereupon  with  the  Disciples,  Jesus 
confirms  this  rejection  of  divorce,  declaring  adul- 
terous remarriage  after  separation. 

III. — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 

in  St.  Luke  XVI,  18 73 

Considered  in  themselves,  Christ’s  words,  as 
recorded  by  St.  Luke,  manifestly  make  Him 
declare  adulterous  remarriage  after  separation. 
—Considered  in  their  context,  and  in  their  actual 
formulation  by  our  third  Evangelist,  these  same 
words  are  seen  to  be  intended  by  St.  Luke  to 
ascribe  to  Our  Lord  an  absolute  rejection  of 
divorce. 


9 


10 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

IV. — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 

in  I Cor.  VII,  10,  11 95 


St.  Paul,  writing  to  “ the  married  ” Corinthian 
faithful  subjected  to  the  command  of  the  Lord 
concerning  divorce,  declares  the  marriage  tie 
indissoluble  in  virtue  of  that  command. — This 
view  of  St.  Paul’s  passage  (I  Cor.  vii,  10,  11)  is 
confirmed  by  the  context,  and  by  other  passages 
of  Pauline  Epistles  which  undoubtedly  declare 
the  marriage  bond  as  lifelong. 

V.  — The  “ Pauline  Privilege  ” in  I Cor. 

VII,  12-16 121 

The  third  group  of  Corinthian  faithful  to 
whom  St.  Paul  intends  to  give  appropriate  rules 
concerning  the  married  state.  — The  Apostle 
views  the  marriage  of  those  in  this  third  group  as 
contracted  outside  the  Law  of  Christ,  and  as  dis- 
soluble, if  the  non-converted  consort  refuses  to 
cohabit  peaceably  with  the  party  who  has  em- 
braced Christianity  after  the  marriage  had  been 
contracted. — The  “ Pauline  Privilege,”  an  admis- 
sion, not  a rejection,  of  the  Lord’s  command. 

V 

VI. - — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 

in  Mt.  V,  31,  32  (“Except  because  of 
fornication  ”)  149 

St.  Matthew’s  exact  purpose  in  this  first  pas- 
sage of  his  Gospel. — The  Jewish  interpretation 
of  the  Mosaic  decree  concerning  divorce,  quoted 
in  Mt.  v,  31,  treated  by  the  Evangelist  as  incor- 
rect, because  it  rules  out  Moses’  requirement  of 
the  cause  of  fornication  for  a lawful  dismissal, 
and  allows  remarriage  after  a lawful  separation. 

— Christ’s  interpretation  of  the  same  Mosaic 


CONTENTS 


11 


CHAPTER 

decree  is  presented  in  Mt.  v,  32,  as  accurately 
fulfilling  the  Law,  for  the  precisely  opposite  rea- 
sons.— The  clause,  “ Except  for  fornication,” 
does  not  set  forth  a ground  for  divorce. 

VII. — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 
in  First  Part  of  Mt.  XIX,  3-12 
(“  What  God  has  joined  together,  let  not 
man  put  asunder  ”) 

Summary  of  preceding  chapter. — Two  pre- 
vious general  remarks. — Christ’s  absolute  rejec- 
tion of  divorce  as  contrary  to  the  Law  of  God 
recorded  in  Gen.  i,  27 ; ii,  24. — Examination  of 
Mt.  xix,  3-6,  in  the  light  of  Mt.  v,  31,  32. — Con- 
clusions. 

VIII. — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 
in  Second  Part  of  Mt.  XIX,  3-12 
(“  Unless  for  fornication  ”) 

Precise  object  of  the  question  in  Mt.  xix,  7. 
— Our  Lord  in  His  answer  (Mt.  xix,  8,  9)  estab- 
lishes the  true  purpose  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4;  insists 
that  His  demand  for  a higher  righteousness  is  a 
Divine  requirement ; and,  finalty,  gives  a 

response  to  His  opponents  which  rejects  divorce 
absolutely  and  is  in  distinct  agreement  with  the 
true  purpose  of  Moses’  decree  concerning  divorce. 
— The  clause,  “ Unless  for  fornication,”  does  not 
set  forth  a ground  for  divorce. 

IX. — Christ’s  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce 
in  Third  Part  of  Mt.  XIX,  3-12 
(Celibacy,  a state  preferable  to  mar- 
riage)   

The  Disciples’  remark  in  Mt.  xix,  10,  shows 
that  they  have  understood  the  foregoing  answer 


PAGE 


181 


211 


241 


12 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

of  their  Master  to  “ Pharisees/’  as  a total  rejec- 
tion of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce. — Our  Lord’s 
answer  to  His  Disciples’  remark  is  a confirmation 
of  the  meaning  which  they  have  taken  of  His 
words  to  His  opponents. — General  conclusions 
from  the  examination  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12. 

Appendix  I. — Thorough  Harmony  of  Mt.  XIX, 

3-12,  with  Mark  X,  2-12 251 

The  opening  question  of  “ Pharisees  ” in  both 
passages  is  to  the  same  effect. — Inversions  and 
other  differences  in  Mt.  xix,  4-8,  and  Mark  x, 

3-9,  stated  and  examined. — The  differences  be- 
tween Mt.  xix,  9-12,  and  Mark  x,  10-12,  although 
apparently  more  considerable,  leave  intact  the 
agreement  of  our  first  two  Synoptists. 

Appendix  II. — Exact  Meaning  of  the  Mosaic 

Decree  Concerning  Divorce 263 

The  traditional  interpretation  of  the  Jews 
stated  and  rejected:  it  ascribes  to  Moses  a very 
loose  divorce  law. — Our  Lord  fulfils  “ the  Law 
and  the  Prophets”:  Malachias  ii,  13,  sqq.  quoted. 
—The  natural  meaning  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4. — The 
expression  ‘erwath  dabhar  denotes  adultery, 
despite  the  assertion  of  Protestant  writers  to  the 


contrary. 

Form  of  a Jewish  Bill  of  Divorce 269 

Bibliography 271 

Index  of  Topics 275 

Index  of  Scriptural  Passages 280 

Index  of  Jewish  Authorities  Quoted  or 
Referred  to 282 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


he  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 


regarding  the  important  and  vexed  question 
of  divorce  is  well  defined  and  well  known.  Cath- 
olics are  expressly  taught  that  after  the  Christian 
marriage  has  been  validly  contracted  and  con- 
summated divorce  cannot  be  allowed  for  any  rea- 
son. Separation  for  sufficient  cause  may  indeed 
be  lawful,  but  remarriage  during  the  lifetime  of 
either  consort  is  positively  forbidden  under  the 
pain  of  adultery.  They  are  also  taught  that  this 
strict  doctrine  is  based  on  Our  Lord’s  very  in- 
junction concerning  such  a marriage,  and  that 
consequently,  no  human  power,  whether  of 
Church  or  State,  can  lawfully  authorize  the 
remarriage  of  either  husband  or  wife,  so  long  as 
the  bond  of  holy  matrimony  has  not  been  sun- 
dered by  death. 


CHAPTER  I 


INTRODUCTORY 


13 


14  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Such  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Church  of 
God,  “the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth”  (I 
Tim.  iii,  15).  Its  correctness  is  certain  even 
irrespective  of  the  fact  that  it  is  embodied  in  the 
inspired  records  of  the  New  Testament.  Before 
a single  line  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Law  had  been  written,  the  Church  existed  and 
was  in  possession  of  the  oral  teaching  of  her 
divine  Founder  on  this  important  point.  Christ’s 
words  were  the  law  regarding  the  question  of 
divorce  among  the  Christians  of  St.  Paul’s  time, 
and  it  is  to  this  fact  that  the  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles bore  distinct  testimony  when  he  wrote  to  the 
faithful  of  Corinth:  “ As  to  the  married  I com- 
mand, yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord,  that  the  wife 
depart  not  from  her  husband  . . . and  that  the 
husband  dismiss  not  his  wife  ” (I  Cor.  vii,  10). 
It  is  true  that,  at  an  early  date,  this  authoritative 
pronouncement  of  Jesus  was  embodied  in  the 
sacred  records  of  Christianity.  But,  of  course, 
such  event  did  not  invalidate  the  previous  testi- 
mony of  the  Church  to  Our  Lord’s  doctrine  con- 
cerning divorce.  It  simply  added  to  the  hitherto 
unwritten  Christian  tradition,  a written  one  to 
which  we  may  even  now  appeal  confidently  to 
prove  that  the  present  Catholic  teaching  on  this 
point  is  no  other  than  that  which  is  ascribed  to 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  15 


Christ  in  the  early  documents  of  our  faith.  As 
a matter  of  fact,  the  use  of  the  strictest  methods 
of  literary  and  historical  research  in  the  prep- 
aration of  the  present  volume  has  simply  con- 
firmed in  the  eyes  of  its  author  the  conclusive 
character  of  this  appeal.  And  it  is  the  object  of 
this  introductory  chapter  briefly  to  set  forth  the 
arguments  which  are  given  in  detail  in  the  body 
of  the  work,  and  which  should  bring  home  the 
same  conviction  to  any  and  every  examiner  of 
the  New  Testament  passages  which  bear  on  the 
question  of  divorce. 

St.  Mark:  The  first  of  these  Scriptural  passages 

x,  2-12.  is  found  in  St.  Mark’s  Gospel  (x, 

2-12).  In  the  first  part  of  the  passage  there  is 
recorded  a public  discussion  of  Our  Lord  with 
opponents  of  His,  concerning  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce : 

Mark  x. 

2.  And  Pharisees  having  approached 
asked  Him: 

Is  it  lawful  for  a man  to  put  away  a wife? 
tempting  Him. 

3.  But  He  answering,  said  to  them: 

What  did  Moses  command  you? 

4.  But  they  said : 

Moses  allowed  to  write  a bill  of  divorce 
and  to  put  away. 


16  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


5.  But  Jesus  said  to  them: 

For  your  hardness  of  heart 

he  wrote  you  this  commandment. 

6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  creation, 
male  and  female  he  made  them. 

7.  On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father 

and  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 

8.  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh ; 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

9.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

These  adversaries  of  Jesus  are  “ Pharisees,” 
the  well-known  sticklers  for  Jewish  tradition,  in 
our  second  Evangelical  narrative  (Cfr.  Mk.  vii, 
1-13,  etc.) . They  approach  Him  with  a “ tempt- 
ing ” question:  “ Is  it  lawful  for  a man  to  put 
away  his  wife?”  which  proves  that  they  are 
aware  of  Christ’s  own  rejection  of  that  lawful- 
ness. Confronted  in  reply  by  the  unexpected 
question:  “What  did  Moses  command  you?” 

(Mk.  x,  3),  which  shows  that  Jesus  fully  knows 
their  hostile  purpose  of  setting  Him  at  variance 
with  the  Mosaic  lawfulness  of  divorce,  they 
answer:  “Moses  allowed  to  write  a hill  of 

divorce  and  to  put  away”  (x,  4).  According 
to  them,  Moses’  decree  in  Deut.  xxiv : 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife,  and  marrieth  her,  and 
it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  17 


because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency,  that  he 
writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into 
her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth  and 
becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  husband  hateth  her  and  writeth  her 
a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand,  and 
putteth  her  out  of  his  house;  or  if  the  latter  husband, 
who  took  her  as  his  wife,  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away,  is  not 
allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after  that  she 
is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination  before  Yahweh, 
and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land  which  Yahweh, 
thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an  inheritance; 

proves  that  Israel’s  lawgiver  has  made  it  lawful 
for  a man  to  put  away  his  wife  so  as  to  sever  the 
marriage  tie,  under  the  sole  condition  of  supply- 
ing her  with  a bill  of  divorce.  Will  Jesus  go 
against  this,  and  therefore  against  the  Law? 
And  now  comes,  prompt  and  decisive,  Christ’s 
own  declaration.  He  is  indeed  against  divorce, 
but  not  against  Moses  (x,  5).  The  Mosaic  ordi- 
nance, objected  to  Him,  was  given  simply  on 
account  of  the  hardness  of  the  Jewish  heart  as 
proved  by  the  deterring  particulars  of  its  text: 
the  requirement  of  a bill  of  divorce,  a manifest 
curtailment  of  a man’s  power  in  putting  away 
his  unwelcome  wife;  the  burdensome  obligation 
to  write , to  deliver  that  document;  the  solemn 


18  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


warning  that  the  dismissing  husband  will  not  be 
allowed  to  take  his  wife  back  after,  thus  supplied 
with  a bill  of  divorce,  she  will  have  consummated 
a union  with  “ another  man.”  Nay  more,  Moses 
himself  is  no  less  opposed  to  divorce  than  Jesus, 
since  he  declares  remarriage,  after  dismissal  by 
a bill  of  divorce,  an  adulterous  defilement  (the 
Hebrew  verb  in  the  expression  “ after  that  she  is 
defiled,”  meaning  certainly  adultery),  and  a 
veritable  “ abomination  before  Yahweh.”  Jesus 
is  indeed  against  divorce;  but  not  against  the 
Law  (x,  6-8).  There  is  written  in  that  Law 
(Gen.  i,  27;  ii,  24)  that  the  Creator  contem- 
plated and  decreed  the  indissolubility  of  mar- 
riage once  consummated: 

Mk.  x. 

6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  creation, 
male  and  female  he  made  them. 

7.  On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father 

and  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 

8.  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh; 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

This  law  has  not  been  superseded,  nor  can  it  be 
superseded : 

Mk.  x. 

9.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together. 

Jet  not  man  put  asunder. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  19 


Together  with  this  forcible  and  absolute  rejec- 
tion of  divorce  by  Jesus,  there  is  recorded  in  Mk. 
x,  2-12,  a private  declaration  of  His  to  the  dis- 
ciples, which  forms  the  second  part  of  that  pas- 
sage: 

Mk.  x. 

10.  And  in  the  house  again  the  disciples  asked  Him 
concerning  this. 

11.  And  He  says  to  them: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
and  shall  marry  another, 
commits  adultery  against  her ; 

12.  and  if  she,  having  put  away  her  husband, 
shall  marry  another, 

commits  adultery. 

And  as  anybody  can  readily  see,  this  private  dec- 
laration is  the  plainest  affirmation  to  the  future 
teachers  of  Christ’s  Church,  that  according  to 
Jesus,  remarriage  after  dismissal  is  rank  adul- 
tery. These  teachers  repeated  Our  Lord’s  doc- 
trine to  the  early  Christians,  and  their  successors 
in  the  apostolic  office  have  repeated  it  down  to 
the  present  day. 

St.  Luke:  The  single  verse  of  our  third  Evan- 

xvi,  18.  gelist,  which  bears  directly  on  divorce, 
ascribes  to  Jesus  the  same  distinct  and  absolute 
rejection  of  divorce  as  we  have  seen  attributed 


20  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


to  Him  by  our  second  Synoptist.  Literally  ren- 
dered, this  verse  reads  as  follows: 

Lk.  xvi,  18. 

Every  one  who  puts  away  his  wife 

and  marries  another 

commits  adultery ; 

and  he,  who  marries 

one  put  away  from  a husband, 

commits  adultery. 

Considered  in  themselves,  these  words  of  Christ 
are  so  plain  that  their  import  could  not  be  missed 
by  traditionalistic  “ Pharisees  ” to  whom  they 
were  primitively  directed  (Cfr.  Lk.  xvi,  14,  15), 
any  more  than  by  the  unbiased  reader  of  them  at 
the  present  day.  In  Our  Lord’s  eyes,  a man’s 
repudiation  of  his  wife  releases  neither  consort 
from  the  bond  of  matrimony.  The  dismissing 
husband,  whoever  he  may  be,  and  by  whatever 
motive  actuated,  is  guilty  of  adultery  by  the  very 
fact  that,  knowing  himself  to  be  a divorced  man, 
he  takes  another  wife.  In  like  manner,  any  man 
is  an  adulterer  who  presumes  to  take  for  his  wife 
one  whom  he  knows  to  be  a divorced  woman. 
Legal  forms  of  divorce  may  have  been  gone 
through,  and  men  may  deem  the  marriage  dis- 
solved. Before  God,  separated  husband  and  wife 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  21 


are  yet  fully  husband  and  wife,  and  the  remar- 
riage of  either  or  of  both  is  nothing  but  adultery. 

And  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  when  these 
same  words  of  Christ  are  closely  examined  either 
in  the  light  of  their  immediate  context  (Cfr.  Lk. 
xvi,  14-17) , or  in  that  of  the  parallel  passages  of 
St.  Matthew’s  and  St.  Mark’s  Gospels,  by  means 
of  which  our  third  Evangelist  can  easily  be  seen 
to  have  formulated  them,  the  absolute  rejection 
of  divorce  which  Lk.  xvi,  18,  obviously  sets  forth, 
is  precisely  the  position  which  St.  Luke  intended 
to  ascribe  to  Christ.  (For  details,  see  Chap- 
ter III.) 

I.  Corinthians:  Earlier  testimony  than  that  of  St. 

vii,  10, 11.  Luke,  and  perhaps  than  that  of  St. 
Mark,  is  not  wanting  with  regard  to  Our  Lord’s 
teaching  concerning  divorce.  It  is  given  by  the 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  writing  between  53  and 
56  a.d.j  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  which  owed 
him  its  existence,  and  which  looked  up  to  him  for 
guidance.  Christ’s  doctrine  respecting  divorce 
and  virginity  was  well  known  in  those  early  days, 
and  it  not  unnaturally  offered  practical  difficul- 
ties to  Christians  of  St.  Paul’s  time.  Apprised 
of  such  difficulties,  the  Apostle  writes : 


22  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


I Cor.  vii. 


10.  Tots  Se  yeyafxrjKocnv  irapay- 

yeXX(x>/ 

ovk  iyoi,  aXXa  6 Kvpios, 
yvi/aiKa  ai to  avSpo s prj  XWP~ 
icrOr/vaL, 

1 1 . iav  8e  Kal  x(J)PLar@[], 
pever  oj  ayapos 

r)  T (o  avSpl  KaTaXXayr'jTU), 

Kal  avSpa  yvyaLKa  pij  acfn- 
cvat. 


10.  But  to  the  married  I 

command, 

not  I,  but  the  Lord, 
that  a wife  depart  not 
from  a husband, 

11.  — but  and  if  she  de- 

part, 

let  her  remain  unmar- 
ried 

or  let  her  be  recon- 
ciled to  the  hus- 
band.— 

and  that  a husband 
dismiss  not  a wife. 


Plainly,  words  like  these  bespeak  no  hesitation  on 
St.  Paul’s  part.  Through  the  pure  channel  of 
oral  tradition,  he  knows  of  a command  of  “ the 
Lord  ” which  no  member  of  a Christian  com- 
munity can  gainsay,  and  which  to  his  mind  set- 
tles the  case  submitted  to  him.  His  plain  duty  is 
to  enforce  such  “ command  ” upon  the  Christians 
living  in  matrimony  (yeya^oW)  and,  in  conse- 
quence, he  openly  declares  that  no  such  husband 
and  wife  should  dare  to  treat  as  severed  the  mar- 
riage tie  (m  xupicrOrjvai,  prj  afaevai) . This  is  the  law 
of  Christ,  and  it  remains  in  full  vigor,  for  what- 
ever reason  a separation,  temporary  or  perma- 
nent, may  take  place: 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  23 


I Cor.  vii,  11. 

— but  and  if  she  depart, 

let  her  remain  unmarried 

or  let  her  be  reconciled  to  the  husband, — 

for  no  separation  can  do  away  with  the  fact  that 
living  husband  and  wife  are  yet  in  the  eyes  of 
Christ  and  of  His  Apostle  bound  to  each  other 
by  holy  matrimony. 

This  direct  interpretation  of  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11, 
is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  contrast  which  these 
verses  present  with  the  immediately  preceding 
ones: 

I Cor.  vii. 

8.  But  I say  to  the  unmarried  and  the  widows : 

It  is  good  if  they  remain  as  even  I. 

9.  But  if  they  do  not  contain  themselves,  let  them 

marry, 

for  it  is  better  to  marry  than  to  be  burnt. 

Whereas  the  Christians  truly  free  from  the  mar- 
riage bond  (“  the  unmarried  and  the  widows  ”) 
should  on  account  of  actual  sins  against  their 
present  state  alter  it  and  contract  a lawful  mar- 
riage, St.  Paul  admits  nothing  of  the  sort  with 
regard  to  “the  married”  (verse  10).  There 
occurs  indeed  to  his  mind  the  case  of  “ a wife  ” 
severing,  as  far  as  in  her  lies,  the  tie  which  unites 


24  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


her  to  “ a husband.”  But,  far  from  likening  her, 
in  her  actual  separation,  to  “ the  unmarried  and 
the  widows  ” by  telling  her  to  remarry  should  her 
isolated  condition  betray  her  into  incontinency, 
he  bids  her  abstain  from  marriage  intercourse  or 
be  reconciled  to  the  one  who  is  still  her  “ hus- 
band ” (verse  11 ) . 

The  same  interpretation  is  next  confirmed  by 
the  following  context  (I  Cor.  vii,  12-16)  wherein 
the  Apostle  promulgates  that  which  is  called 
“ the  Pauline  Privilege,”  and  of  which  we  shall 
speak  presently.  It  is  confirmed,  finally,  by  those 
passages  of  his  Ejnstles  (I  Cor.  vii,  39;  Rom. 
vii,  2,  3;  Ephes.  v,  22-33),  where  St.  Paul’s 
mind  concerning  the  indissolubility  of  Christian 
marriage  cannot  be  questioned.  Of  these  pas- 
sages, the  first  expressly  states  that  the  marriage 
bond  is  of  lifelong  duration;  the  second  adds  to 
this  a declaration  of  the  guilt  of  adultery  against 
remarriage  before  death  intervenes ; and  the 
third  describes  husband  and  wife  as  forming  an 
unbreakable  unit,  after  the  manner  of  union 
which  exists  ^between  Christ  and  the  Church. 

“The Pauline  Besides  the  two  classes  of  persons 
Privilege.”  spoken  of  with  regard  to  the  married 
state,  by  St.  Paul  in  I Cor.  vii,  8,  9,  and  I Cor. 
vii,  10,  11,  and  described  as  “ the  unmarried  and 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  25 


the  widows,”  and  “ the  married,”  respectively, 
there  is  a third  class  designated  by  the  words, 
“ the  rest,”  at  the  beginning  of  I Cor.  vii,  12-16: 

I Cor.  vii. 

12.  But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord: 

If  any  brother  has  a non-believing  wife 
and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 

let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a non-believing  husband 
and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 

let  her  not  dismiss  him. 

14.  For  the  non-believing  husband  is  hallowed  in 

the  wife, 

and  the  non-believing  wife  is  hallowed  in  the 
brother : 

else  were  your  children  unclean;  but  now  they 
are  holy. 

15.  But  if  the  non-believing  [consort]  departs, 
let  him  depart. 

The  brother  or  the  sister  is  not  enslaved  in 
such  [cases], 

but  God  has  called  us  in  peace. 

16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  O wife, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 

This  third  class  of  persons  manifestly  forms  a 
peculiar  group  of  the  Corinthian  faithful 
(‘‘brother,”  “sister,”  in  Christ),  to  whom  the 
Apostle  intends  to  give  appropriate  directions 


26  CHRIST'S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


concerning  their  married  state.  They  do  not 
belong  to  “ the  unmarried  and  the  widows,”  since 
they  are  actually  bound  by  the  marriage  tie ; nor 
do  they  belong  to  “ the  married,”  both  of  whom 
are  Christians,  since  their  marriage  is,  so  to 
speak,  mixed,  through  the  conversion  of  only  one 
consort,  husband  or  wife,  subsequently  to  the 
time  when  it  was  contracted.  In  view  of  this,  St. 
Paul  looks  upon  the  marriage  of  this  third  class 
of  persons,  as  a marriage  contract  made  outside 
the  Law  of  Christ,  and  as  such  dissoluble,  if  the 
consort  who  has  not  become  a Christian,  refuses 
to  live  peaceably  with  the  converted  partner. 
This  dissolubility  is  admitted  by  the  Apostle, 
because  he  does  not  consider  that  the  Lord’s  com- 
mand applies  to  such  manner  of  unions  (Cfr. 
I Cor.  vii,  12a),  so  that  his  mind  with  regard  to 
Christ’s  doctrine  concerning  divorce  cannot  be 
doubtful.  He  knows  that  no  marriage  con- 
tracted by  parties  subjected  to  Christ’s  Law  can 
be  dissolved  otherwise  than  by  actual  death. 
(For  details  regarding  the  “ Pauline  Privilege,” 
see  Chapter  V.) 

St.  Matthew:  The  New  Testament  passages,  thus 
v,  31-32.  far  examined,  set  forth  Our  Lord’s 
teaching  concerning  divorce,  without  placing  on 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  27 


His  lips  any  restrictive  clause.  The  case  stands 
differently  with  regard  to  the  two  passages  of  St. 
Matthew’s  Gospel,  which  still  remain  to  be  con- 
sidered. The  first  of  these  passages,  literally 
rendered  from  the  Greek,  reads  as  follows: 


Mt.  v. 

/ 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 

The  fairly-minded  interpreter  of  these  verses 
readily  sees  that  they  contain  an  antithesis  con- 
trasting two  sayings — that  of  Jewish  tradition- 
alists, and  that  of  Jesus — which  must  needs  be 
understood  in  the  light  of  the  exact  contrast  man- 
ifestly intended  by  the  author  of  our  first  Gospel. 
What  is  this  exact  contrast,  then?  The  antithe- 
sis in  Mt.  v,  31-32  is  placed  in  the  midst  of  five 
others  (Mt.  v,  21-22;  27-28;  33-37;  38-39; 

43-48)  which  are  built  on  the  same  lines  as  the 
one  now  under  consideration.  Each  introduces 
first  a solemn  declaration  of  the  sense  in  which 


28  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


a text  of  the  Mosaic  Law  had  been  determined 
by  Jewish  tradition,  and  next  an  authoritative 
opposed  saying  of  Jesus  setting  forth  His  own 
interpretation  of  that  same  Law.  All  these 
antitheses  are  adduced  by  our  first  Evangelist 
for  the  definite  purpose  of  illustrating  the  man- 
ner in  which  Christ’s  saying,  differently  from 
that  of  the  Jewish  Elders,  fulfils  the  text  of  the 
Law  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle,”  although  it  makes 
that  Law  require  for  admittance  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  a righteousness  higher  than  that 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  (Cfr.  Mt.  v,  17 
sqq.)  It  is  thus  seen  that  the  two  members  of 
the  antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  31-32: 

Mt.  v. 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 

give  the  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  authorities  con- 
cerning divorce,  in  such  contrast  to  that  of  Our 
Lord,  that  the  former  must  be  taken  as  an 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  29 


imperfect  interpretation  of  the  written  text  of 
the  Law  respecting  divorce,  and  that  the  latter 
must  be  taken,  on  the  contrary,  as  the  one  which 
fulfils  that  same  text  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle.” 
Of  course,  the  Mosaic  text  concerning  divorce, 
thus  differently  interpreted  by  Jewish  tradition 
and  by  Jesus,  respectively,  is  no  other  than  the 
classical  passage  of  Deuteronomy  xxiv,  1-4: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife,  and  marrieth  her,  and 

it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes, 
because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency,  that 
he  writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth  and 

becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth  her  a bill 

of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand,  and 
putteth  her  out  of  his  house,  or  if  the  latter  man 
who  took  her  as  his  wife  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  is  not  allowed 

to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after  that  she  is 
defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination  before  Yahweh, 
and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land  which 
Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an  inheritance. 

On  the  basis  of  that  text,  Jewish  expounders  of 
the  Law  declared  in  the  synagogues  of  Our 


30  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Lord’s  day  that  Israel’s  lawgiver  had  simply 
required  from  a man  determined  to  put  away 
his  wife  that  he  should  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 
The  actual  giving  of  that  document,  they  main- 
tained, severed  the  marriage  tie  as  effectively  as 
death  itself,  so  that  subsequent  remarriage  could 
not  be  tainted  with  adultery,  for  whatever  cause 
a wife  might  have  thus  been  dismissed.  Who- 
ever acted  on  this  traditional  interpretation 
secured  the  righteousness  of  the  Law,  whatever 
might  be  asserted  to  the  contrary.  It  is  in  direct 
opposition  then,  to  such  view,  that  Jesus’  saying 
was  presented  by  St.  Matthew  in  v,  31,  32,  and 
that  it  must  be  understood  by  the  interpreter  who 
wishes  to  realize  Our  Lord’s  doctrine  as  given  in 
that  passage.  In  the  eyes  of  St.  Matthew,  the 
traditional  rule  of  the  Jews  was  decidedly  in- 
correct ; it  not  only  waived  the  cause  required  by 
Moses  from  the  man  who  was  determined  to  put 
away  his  wife,  viz.,  “ because  he  hath  found  in  her 
some  indecency,”  (f erwath  dabhar,  “ the  naked- 
ness of  a thing  ”)  ; it  also  treated  as  lawful  the 
remarriage  of  a dismissed  wife  who  was  supplied 
with  a bill  of  divorce,  whereas  Moses  had  quali- 
fied this  remarriage  as  an  adulterous  defilemept: 
u after  that  she  is  defiled”  (the  verb  NDtD  used 
in  that  clause,  certainly  denotes  adulterv  in  other 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  31 


passages  of  the  Law).  The  doctrine  of  Christ, 
on  the  contrary,  fulfils  perfectly,  according  to 
our  first  Synoptist,  the  requirements  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic  text : a dismissed  wife  cannot  remarry 
without  committing  adultery  together  with  the 
man  who  marries  her,  and  the  dismissing  hus- 
band is  responsible  for  that  adultery,  if  he  puts 
her  away  without  the  specified  cause:  “except 
because  of  fornication  ” (Aoyos  Tropveias  = ‘ erwatli 
dabhar ) . And  thus,  Christ’s  doctrine  concerning 
divorce  in  St.  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  stands  perfectly 
clear  before  the  unbiased  interpreter  of  that  pas- 
sage. It  is  a doctrine  which  recognizes  as  lawful 
only  a permanent  separation  of  husband  and  wife 
for  a sufficient  cause,  and  which  brands  as  adul- 
terous the  remarriage  after  separation  even  for 
the  highest  cause,  viz.,  that  of  conjugal  infidelity. 
It  is  the  same  doctrine  as  is  ascribed  to  Our  Lord 
in  the  New  Testament  passages  already  exam- 
ined ; the  same  doctrine  as  is  expressly  taught  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  down  to  the  present 
day. 

St. Matthew:  Had  non-Catholics  distinctly  borne 
xix,  3-12.  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  restrictive 
clause,  “ except  because  of  fornication,”  does  not 
set  forth  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  a ground  for  divorce, 


32  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


it  is  not  likely  that  so  many  among  them  would 
have  considered  the  parallel  clause,  “ unless  for 
fornication,”  in  a later  passage  of  the  same  Gos- 
pel (Mt.  xix,  3-12)  as  meaning  on  Our  Lord’s 
part  a permission  to  practise  divorce  for  the  sole 
cause  of  adultery.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  is  no 
doubt  to  the  careful  interpreter  of  this  passage: 

Mt.  xix. 

3.  And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife 
for  every  cause? 

4.  But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  that 
the  Creator  from  the  beginning 

made  them  male  and  female?  5.  and  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh? 

6.  so  that  they  are  no  longer  twTo,  but  one  flesh. 
What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 

let  not  man  put  asunder. 

7.  They  say  to  Him: 

Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a bill  of 
divorce 

and  to  put  away? 

8.  He  says  to  them  that 

Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 
allowed  you  to  put  away  your  wives: 
but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  33 


9.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another, 

commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery. 

10.  The  disciples  say  to  Him. 

If  so  be  the  case  of  the  man  with  the  wife 
it  is  not  expedient  to  marry. 

11.  But  He  said  to  them: 

All  do  not  receive  this  saying, 
but  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 

12.  For  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  so  born  from  their 

mother’s  womb; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  made  eunuchs  by 
men ; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  made  themselves 
eunuchs  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

He  who  can  receive  [it],  let  him  receive  [it]  ; 

that  our  first  Evangelist  does  not  therein  ascribe 
to  His  Master  a doctrine  opposed  to  the  one 
which  we  have  found  attributed  to  Him  in  all 
the  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  “ tempting  ” opening  question  of  “ Phari- 
sees ” asks  Jesus  if  He  admits  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  for  every  cause.  This  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  these  opponents  of  Christ  are  aware  of  His 
former  total  rejection  of  divorce  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32. 
According  to  them,  Jesus  has  therein  declared 


34  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


that  a man  may  put  away  his  wife  only  if  he  has 
the  cause  specified  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1 : “ except 
because  of  fornication,”  and  this  cause  He  has 
treated  as  not  making  it  lawful  to  remarry  after 
dismissal,  since  He  has  expressly  and  absolutely 
added:  “Whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery.”  It  is  plain  to  them  that 
Christ  is  totally  at  variance  with  the  Mosaic  law- 
fulness of  divorce  as  fixed  by  Jewish  tradition, 
in  virtue  of  which  a man  may  practise  divorce 
by  the  simple  giving  of  a bill  of  divorce,  for 
whatever  cause  this  document  be  given.  And 
their  present  question:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put 

away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause?  ” is  for  the 
immediate  purpose  of  betraying  Jesus  publicly 
into  a renewed  expression  of  His  total  rejection 
of  divorce.  That  such  is  the  view  which  St. 
Matthew  takes  of  that  question  is  plain  from  the 
fact  that  he  represents  as  an  answer  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  Pharisees’  inquiry  (“But  He 
answering  said  ”) , Christ’s  emphatic  rejection  of 
the  lawfulness  of  divorce: 

Mt.  xix. 

6.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together,  let 
not  man  put  asunder; 

based  on  two  texts  of  the  Law  (Gen.  i,  27;  ii, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  35 


24)  which  contain  God’s  undoubted  intention 
and  explicit  will  that  a consummated  legitimate 
marriage  shall  be  indissoluble. 

Having  secured  this  renewed  declaration  of 
Christ’s  total  rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce,  “ Pharisees  ” now  come  out  with  the 
ulterior  purpose  of  their  “ tempting  ” question, 
saying:  “ Why  then  did  Moses  command  to 
give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away?  ” In  the 
interval  between  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(Mt.  v)  and  the  present  interview  of  Pharisees 
with  Jesus  (Mt.  xix),  these  opponents  of  Christ 
have  examined  Plis  former  declaration,  and  think 
themselves  able  to  disprove  His  contention  that 
His  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  decree  in  Mt. 
v,  32,  fulfils  that  text  of  the  Law,  although  it 
requires  a higher  righteousness  than  theirs.  As 
they  have  made  out,  to  reject  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  altogether  is  not  to  require  a higher  right- 
eousness that  would  be  compatible  with  the 
Mosaic  decree  construed  in  agreement  with  the 
purpose  of  Israel’s  lawgiver.  It  is  evident  to 
them  that  Moses,  in  commanding  to  give  a bill  of 
divorce  and  to  put  away,  intended  to  allow 
remarriage  after  a lawful  dismissal  of  one’s  wife, 
since  it  is  a bill  of  divorce  which  is  enjoined,  and 
to  allow  it  for  whatever  cause — for  fornication 


36  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


or  not — that  the  document  be  given,  since  it  is 
the  giving  of  a bill  of  divorce,  and  nothing  more, 
which  is  required  by  “ Moses’  command  to  give 
a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away.”  It  is  no  less 
evident  to  the  same  Pharisees,  that  had  Jesus  not 
willed  to  rule  out  this  purpose  of  Moses,  He 
would  have  worded  His  former  interpretation 
(Mt.  v,  32)  of  the  Deuteronomic  decree  in  agree- 
ment with  its  supposed  framer’s  purpose;  in 
which  case,  that  declaration  of  His  would  have 
necessarily  run  as  follows: 

“ Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
for  fornication  or  not 
and  shall  marry  another, 
does  not  commit  adultery, 
and  the  man  who  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
does  not  commit  adultery.”  1 

As  a fact,  it  runs  the  very  opposite  of  this.  It  is 
an  interpretation  of  the  Deuteronomic  decree,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  for 
every  cause,  which  it  was,  according  to  Pharisees, 
Moses’  purpose  to  proclaim  when  framing  his 
command  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put 

1 For  details  concerning  this  point,  see  Chapter  VIII.' — Of 
course  the  words  given  within  quotation  marks  are  simply  for  the 
purpose  of  making  it  obvious  to  the  reader  how  Christ’s  former 
declaration  (Mt.  v,  32)  should  have  run  according  to  the  mind  of 
the  Pharisees.. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  37 


away.  Hence,  it  was  plain  to  Christ’s  adver- 
saries, that  if  they  could  only  induce  Him  to 
commit  Himself  again  to  the  same  total  rejec- 
tion of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  as  is  set  forth 
in  His  former  declaration  (Mt.  v,  32),  they 
would  have  a chance  to  urge  against  Him  the 
objection:  “ Why  then  did  Moses  command  to 
give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away?”  By 
their  “ tempting  ” opening  question,  they  secured 
that  chance,  and  they  instantly  urged  their  pre- 
pared objection. 

If  “ Pharisees  ” thought  they  had  cornered 
Jesus  they  were  soon  undeceived.  In  His 
answer  Jesus  told  them  the  true  purpose  of 
Moses  in  framing  his  decree  regarding  divorce. 
Israel’s  lawgiver  had  wished  to  root  out  divorce, 
but  not  deeming  it  possible  “for  the  hardness  of 
the  Jewish  heart,”  he  had  tolerated  it,  but  never 
declared  it  morally  right.  Christ’s  opponents 
were  therefore  mistaken  as  to  that  purpose,  and 
Jesus,  in  demanding  a higher  righteousness  than 
the  one  required  by  the  traditional  rule,  was  sim- 
ply vindicating  a righteousness  promulgated  by 
the  Creator  in  the  opening  pages  of  the  Law 
(Gen.  i,  27;  ii,  24).  Their  contention, that  His 
former  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  decree 
destroyed  its  text  construed  in  the  light  of  its 


38  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


framer’s  purpose,  was  likewise  wrong.  This  text 
was  to  be  construed,  not  as  they  had  thought  in 
the  following  manner: 

“ Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
for  fornication  or  not 
and  shall  marry  another 
does  not  commit  adultery, 
and  the  man  who  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
does  not  commit  adultery ; ” 

but  in  the  precisely  opposite  way,  since  the  pur- 
pose of  Moses  was  exactly  the  contrary  of  the 
one  assigned  by  Jewish  tradition,  and  this  Jesus 
declared,  saying: 


Mt.  xix,  9. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery. 

Thus  to  understand  Our  Lord’s  answer  to  His 
opponents’  objection  is  manifestly  to  take  its 
every  word  in  a natural  sense,  and  to  explain  it 
in  the  full  light  of  the  circumstances  of  St.  Mat- 
thew’s time.  It  is  to  understand  it  as  a victorious 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  39 


answer  to  “ Pharisees  ” in  harmony  with  the  fact 
that  our  first  Evangelist  always  represents  Jesus 
as  getting  the  better  of  His  adversaries  when  dis- 
cussing with  them.  It  is  to  interpret  it  in  a man- 
ner which  accounts  for  the  fact  that  St.  Matthew 
introduces  here  again  the  controversy  concerning 
divorce  which  he  has  already  given  in  an  earlier 
passage.  It  is  in  particular  to  interpret  it  in 
harmony  with  the  entire  preceding  context.  On 
the  basis  of  Gen.  i,  27,  and  Gen.  ii,  24,  Christ 
emphatically  declares  every  divorce  unlawful: 

] 

Mt.  xix,  6. 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder; 


and  when  called  upon  to  harmonize  His  former 
declaration  (Mt.  v,  32) — which  Pie  has  just 
repeated  equivalently  and  vindicated  by  antici- 
pation— with  the  purpose  of  Moses’  decree  con- 
cerning divorce,  He  assigns  to  that  decree  an 
object  which  enables  Him  to  construe  the  text 
of  the  same  decree,  in  a manner  which  proves  to 
all  present  that  His  total  rejection  of  divorce 
was  intended  by  Moses,  that,  despite  Jewish  tra- 
dition, Israel’s  lawgiver  has  required  the  cause 
of  fornication  for  tolerating  divorce,  and  has 


40  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


qualified  as  adulterous  remarriage  after  dismissal 
even  for  that  cause. 

It  is  not  only,  however,  the  preceding  context, 
it  is  also  the  following  one,  which  proves  to  the 
careful  interpreter  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  that  Our 
Lord’s  last  words  to  “ Pharisees  ” must  be  taken 
as  not  allowing  divorce  for  the  cause  of  conjugal 
infidelity.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  the  remark 
of  the  disciples: 


Mt.  xix,  10. 

If  so  be  the  case  of  the  man  with  the  wife 

it  is  not  expedient  to  marry; 

which  St.  Matthew  subjoins  at  once,  can  have 
any  meaning.  The  disciples  argue  that  if  their 
Master’s  doctrine  concerning  divorce  were  to 
hold  good,  marriage  would  be  a burden  better 
left  alone.  This  plainly  shows  that  they  have 
understood  Him  to  rule  out  divorce  absolutely, 
for  surely  it  would  be  unreasonable  on  their  part 
to  say  that  it  is  not  expedient  to  marry  if  a man 
can  divorce  his  wife  only  for  adultery,  unless  a 
man  has  the  power  of  unlimited  divorce;  all  the 
more  so,  because  the  disciples  of  Shammai  sub- 
mitted to  the  view  of  this  illustrious  Rabbi  when 
he  maintained  that  divorce  was  allowable  only  in 
the  case  of  adultery.  The  last  part  of  this  fol- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  41 


lowing  context  is  likewise  a confirmation  of  the 
sense  we  have  given  to  Christ’s  final  pronounce- 
ment regarding  divorce.  In  His  answer  to  the 
remark  of  the  disciples: 

Mt.  xix. 

11.  But  He  said  to  them: 

All  do  not  receive  this  saying, 
but  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 

12.  For  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  so  born 
from  their  mother’s  womb ; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  made  eunuchs  by 
men ; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  made  themselves 
eunuchs 

for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

He  who  can  receive  [it],  let  him  receive  [it]  ; 

Jesus  does  indeed  find  fault  with  something 
stated  in  that  remark;  but  it  is  not  with  the 
understanding  of  His  doctrine  which  it  discloses. 
He  finds  fault  only  with  the  low  views  which 
have  prompted  the  disciples  to  declare  celibacy 
preferable  to  marriage.  This  clearly  proves  that 
both  Christ  and  the  Evangelist  who  records  the 
incident  regard  the  disciples  as  having  correctly 
understood  Jesus  to  reject  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  altogether. 

The  foregoing  is  but  a summary  of  the  discus- 
sion set  forth  in  the  following  pages.  Brief  as  it 


42  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


is,  however,  it  should  convince  every  unbiased 
mind  that  all  the  earliest  records  of  Christianity, 
without  exception,  ascribe  to  Our  Lord  exactly 
the  same  doctrine  as  is  taught  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  down  to  the  present  day.  The 
same  summary  will  prove,  it  is  hoped,  a useful 
guide  through  the  more  technical  and  more  full 
discussion  of  the  New  Testament  passages  bear- 
ing on  divorce,  which  is  found  in  the  following 
chapters. 


CHAPTER  II 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  ST.  MARK  X,  2-12 

IN  starting  our  investigation  of  the  doctrine 
regarding  divorce  which  the  earliest  docu- 
ments of  Christianity  ascribe  to  Our  Lord,  it  is 
only  natural  that  we  should  first  examine  those 
which  set  it  forth  in  the  plainest  manner.  Among 
such  documents  is  to  be  reckoned  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Mark,  which  according  to  authoritative  tradi- 
tion embodies  St.  Peter’s  teaching,  and  which, 
according  to  many  recent  students  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Literature,  would  be  our  first  Greek  Gos- 
pel in  respect  to  date  of  composition.1  The  pres- 
ent chapter  will  therefore  he  devoted  to  the  study 
of  Mk.  x,  2-12,  as  of  a very  early  record  of 
Christ’s  teaching  concerning  divorce. 

St.  Mark’s  section  may  be  rendered  directly 
from  the  Greek,  as  follows: 

xCfr.  Jacquier,  Histoire  des  Livres  du  Nouveau  Testament, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  434,  404  (Paris,  1905) ; Lagrange,  Evangile  selon  St. 
Marc,  p.  xxxv,  sqq.  (Paris,  1911). 

43 


44  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mk.  x. 

2.  And  Pharisees  having  approached 
asked  Him  ( avrov ): 

Is  it  lawful  for  a man  to  put  away  a wife? 
tempting  Him  (avrov). 

3.  But  He  answering,  said  to  them : 

What  did  Moses  command  you? 

4.  But  they  said: 

Moses  alloAved  to  write  a bill  of  divorce 
and  to  put  away. 

5.  But  Jesus  said  to  them : 

For  your  hardness  of  heart 

he  wrote  you  this  commandment. 

6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  creation, 
male  and  female  he  made  them. 

7.  On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father 

and  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 

8.  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh; 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

9.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

10.  And  in  the  house  again  the  disciples  asked  Him 
concerning  this. 

11.  And  He  says  to  them: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
and  shall  marry  another, 
commits  adultery  against  her; 

12.  and  if  she,  having  put  away  her  husband, 
shall  marry  another, 

commits  adultery. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  45 


I.  The  Question  The  opening  verse  of  this  sec- 

in  Mk.  x,  2.  tion  bears  the  distinct  impress  of 
St.  Mark’s  personal  style  and  primitive  sim- 
plicity. It  begins  with  the  direct  rendering  of 
the  Hebrew  conjunction  1 Kal  (and)  ; leaves 
understood  the  precise  object  of  the  verbs 
“ asked,”  “ tempting,”  although  this  object, 
“ Jesus,”  has  not  been  named  in  the  preceding 
context;  and  gives  only  at  the  end  of  the  whole 
sentence  the  clause  “ tempting  Him,”  which  a 
more  studied,  but  also  less  primitive  narrator 
than  St.  Mark,  would  have  coupled  directly  with 
the  word  “ Pharisees  ” at  the  beginning  of  the 
verse  as  qualifying  that  subject,1  and  would  have 
placed  before  their  words  of  inquiry:  “ Is  it  law- 
ful for  a man  to  put  away  a wife?  ” 2 as  being  the 
secret  motive  which  prompted  Our  Lord’s 
enemies  to  ask  Him  this  captious  question.  In 
particular,  Mk’s  opening  verse  quotes  that  ques- 
tion in  its  primitive  form.  First  of  all,  it  natu- 
rally speaks  of  a man’s  right  to  divorce:  “ Is  it 
lawful  for  a man  to  put  away  his  wife?  ” for  the 
Mosaic  Law  granted  to  the  husband  alone  the 
power  of  severing  the  marriage  bond.  In  the 

1 This  is  done  by  St.  Matthew,  as  we  shall  point  out  when 
examining  Mt.  xix,  3-12. 

2 Mk’s  wording  “ to  put  away  a wife  ” instead  of  “ his  wife,” 
is  also  a very  primitive  form  of  expression. 


46  CHRIST'S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


second  place,  it  records  the  words  of  Our  Lord’s 
adversaries  in  that  unconditional  form  which  is 
invariably  found  in  the  other  places  where  the 
first  three  Gospels  speak  of  a question  put  to 
Jesus  as  a “ temptation  ” to  Him.1  Lastly,  it 
has  the  exact  wording  that  was  suggested  by 
their  desire  of  betraying  Him  into  a flagrant 
opposition  to  Moses,  the  great  lawgiver  of  Israel. 
Their  question  bears  on  the  very  lawfulness  (Is 
it  lawful?)  of  divorce.  They  know  that  the  Law 
permits  a man  to  put  away  his  wife.  Does  Jesus 
think  this  to  be  right?  such  is  the  purport  of  their 
question.  In  asking  it  they  hope  to  draw  from 
Him  a statement  contrary  to  Moses ; 2 and  by 
simply  saying:  “ Is  it  lawful  for  a man  to  put 
away  his  wife?  ” they  think  that  they  leave  Him 
no  escape  from  the  alternative  of  an  uncon- 
ditional “ yea  ” or  “ nay:  ” Is  it  lawful,  or  not, 
for  a man  to  put  away  his  wife?  As  is  well 
stated  by  a recent  Protestant  writer: 3 “ These 
Pharisees  wish  to  know  if  Jesus  considers  divorce 
to  be  wrong.  They  have,  no  doubt,  heard  such 
rumor  about  Him,  and  they  ask  the  question,  not 

1 Cfr.  Mk.  viii,  11;  xii,  14,  15;  Mt.  xvi,  1;  xxii,  17-18,  35-36; 
Lk.  x,  25;  xi,  16;  xx,  22,  23. 

2 Cfr.  B.  Weiss,  Das  Marcusevangelium  und  seine  synoptischen 
Parallelen,  p.  330  (Berlin,  1872). 

3 Prof.  Allan  Menzies,  The  Earliest  Gospel,  p.  188  sq.  (Mac- 
millan & Co.,  1901). 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  47 


from  an  honest  desire  to  understand  His  position 
and  compare  it  with  their  own,  but  4 tempting  ’ 
Him.  If  what  they  heard  about  Him  is  true, 
then  He  is  setting  Himself  up  against  the  Law, 
which  explicitly  recognizes  divorce,  and  if  He 
can  be  induced  to  make  such  a statement  pub- 
licly, they  will  have  a good  charge  against  Him.” 

II.  Christ’s  Question  That  this  is  the  correct  inter- 
in Mk.  x,  3.  pretation  of  the  mind  of  the 
Pharisees  appears  also  from  the  manner  in  which 
their  question  was  met  by  Our  Lord,  and  which  is 
naturally  recorded  in  St.  Mark’s  very  next  verse : 

Mk.  x,  3. 

But  He  answering,  said  to  them: 

What  did  Moses  command  you? 

Jesus  clearly  saw  that  the  question  put  by  His 
enemies  bore  on  the  lawfulness  of  divorce;  and 
this  is  why  He  immediately  referred  them  to  the 
Law  which  determined  what  was  lawful  for 
them.  He  no  less  distinctly  realized  that  no  one 
would  be  asked  by  orthodox  Pharisees:  44  Is  it 
lawful  for  a man  put  away  his  wife?  ” unless  he 
was  regarded  as  liable  to  respond  in  the  negative ; 
and  that,  as  worded,  their  question  was  meant  to 
elicit  a definite  and  immediate  answer.  In  view 


48  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


of  this,  He  returned  at  once  an  answer,  as  was 
expected  of  Him;  but  He  purposely  gave  it  an 
interrogative  form:  “ What  did  Moses  com- 

mand you?  ” which  the  Pharisees  had  not  antici- 
pated. They  had  hoped  to  take  Jesus  unawares, 
and  to  obtain  such  a reply  as  would  appear  to  all 
in  contradiction  with  the  Mosaic  Law.  But  in 
answering  their  question  by  a question,  He 
manifestly  did  not  commit  Himself  to  any  posi- 
tion, and  so  foiled  their  insidious  plan. 

III.  The  Answer  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Phari- 
in  Mk.  x,  4.  sees  did  not  complain  that  Our 
Lord  had  misconstrued  their  intention.  They 
were  conscious  that  the  view  He  had  taken  of 
their  question  and  of  its  purpose  was  absolutely 
correct.  In  consequence,  they  hastened,  as  is 
implied  in  St.  Mark’s  brief  introductory  formula, 
“ but  they  said,”  to  specify  the  regulation  of 
Moses  which  they  had  in  mind  when  they  put 
their  question,  and  against  which  they  still  hoped 

that  Jesus  would  set  Himself  up  publicly: 

# 

Mk.  x,  4. 

But  they  said: 

Moses  allowed  to  write  a bill  of  divorce, 

and  to  put  away. 

They  thus  referred  Our  Lord  to  Deuteronomy 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  49 


xxiv,  1-4,  a passage  classical  among  them  con- 
cerning divorce.  In  its  full  form,  the  Mosaic 
enactment  therein  contained  reads  literally  as 
follows: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife,  and  marrieth  her,  and 

it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes, 
because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency,  that 
he  writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it] 
into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth  and 

becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

S.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth  her  a bill 
of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand,  and 
putteth  her  out  of  his  house,  or  if  the  latter  man 
who  took  her  as  his  wife  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  is  not 
allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after  that 
she  is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination  before 
Yahweh,  and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land 
which  Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an 
inheritance.1 

The  prompt  and  short  reference  of  the  Phari- 
sees to  this  passage  of  the  Mosaic  Law  bears,  in 
their  answer  to  Our  Lord  as  it  is  given  by  St. 
Mark  (x,  4),  the  distinct  impress  of  primitive 
simplicity  and  rabbinical  accuracy.  Although 

1 This  is  practically  the  direct  rendering  from  the  Hebrew,  sug- 
gested by  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  who  justly  finds  fault  with  the  one 
given  in  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised  Versions.  Cfr.  Von 
Hummelauer,  S.J.,  in  Deuteronomium,  p.  408  sq.  (Paris,  1901). 


50  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Jesus  had  asked:  “What  did  Moses  command 
you?”  His  adversaries  carefully  refrained  from 
using  in  their  reply  the  verb  “ to  command.” 
They  employed  the  verb  “to  allow,”  and  said: 
“ Moses  allowed  to  write  a bill  of  divorce  and  to 
put  away,”  1 so  as  to  bring  their  answer  into  a 
strict  harmony  with  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4.  In  this 
passage  Israel’s  lawgiver  decides  explicitly  not 
that  a man  is  allowed  to  put  away  his  wife  by  a 
bill  of  divorce,  but  that  having  thus  divorced  her, 
he  must  not  take  her  back  after  she  has  consum- 
mated a second  marriage.  At  the  same  time,  as 
can  readily  be  seen,  in  framing  that  decree  Moses 
assumes  the  validity  of  the  act  whereby  the  man 
has  dismissed  his  wife,  and  in  this  way  permits 
the  practice  of  divorce  under  the  condition  that 
a man  shall  supply  his  wife  with  a bill  of  divorce. 
Whence  it  appears  that  Our  Lord’s  adversaries 
were  particularly  careful  in  answering,  “ Moses 
allowed  ” instead  of  saying,  “ Moses  com- 
manded ” “ to  write  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put 
away.”  Nor  were  they  less  careful  in  omitting 
all  reference  to  “ the  indecency  ” spoken  of  in 
Deut.  xxiv,  1,  as  the  cause  for  which  a man  would 
be  justified  in  dismissing  his  wife.  This  expres- 

1 Note  in  Mk.  x,  4 b c,  the  absence  of  the  object  for  the  verbs 
“ to  write,”  “ to  put  away,”  which  is  one  of  the  features  of  St. 
Mark’s  primitive  simplicity. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  51 


sion  of  the  Mosaic  Law  was  the  object  of  an 
ardent  discussion  in  the  Jewish  schools  of  the 
time:  while  Shammai  understood  it  solely  of 
unchastity,  Hillel  took  it  to  include  almost  any- 
thing calculated  to  render  a woman  distasteful  to 
her  husband.1  Now,  the  Pharisees  purposely  did 
not  make  so  much  as  an  allusion  to  it,  because  it 
was  their  intention  to  set  Jesus  publicly  at  vari- 
ance with  what  was  then  regarded  by  all  as 
allowed  by  Moses.  Besides,  in  so  doing,  they 
were  consistently  pursuing  the  aim  which  had 
prompted  them  to  ask  simply  Our  Lord:  “ Is  it 
lawful  for  a man  to  put  away  his  wife?  ” with  a 
view  to  preclude  every  escape  from  the  alterna- 
tive of  an  unconditional  “ yea  ” or  “ nay.” 

IV.  Christ’s  Answer  As  His  adversaries  have 
in  Mk.  x,  5-9.  given  a positive  answer  to 
the  question  of  Jesus,  so  it  now  behooves  Him  to 
return  a positive  answer  to  their  inquiry.  This 
He  does  at  once,  and  indeed  with  such  distinct- 
ness that  none  of  His  hearers  could  easily  be  mis- 
taken as  to  His  exact  mind  concerning  divorce: 

Mk.  x. 

5.  But  Jesus  said  to  them: 
for  your  hardness  of  heart 
he  wrote  you  this  commandment. 

1Cfr.  S.  R,  Driver,  on  Deuteronomy,  p.  270  sq.  (N.  Y.,  1895). 


52  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  creation, 
male  and  female  he  made  them. 

7.  On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father 

and  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 

8.  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh; 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

9.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

Whoever  examines  impartially  this  answer  of 
Our  Lord  will  readily  admit  that  the  one  purpose 
which  pervades  it  and  makes  it  a continuous 
whole,  is  to  show,  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
Pharisees,1  that  divorce  is  decidedly  wrong.  It 
is  with  this  end  in  view  that  Jesus  at  once  bids 
His  opponents  to  take  notice  of  Moses’  frame 
of  mind  in  writing  that  part  of  the  Law  to  which 
they  have  just  appealed.  He  urges  that  the  law- 
giver of  the  J ews  drew  up  this  enactment  in  view 
of  their  hardness  of  heart.  As  he  knew  but  too 
well  the  inner  unfitness  of  his  contemporaries  for 
a higher  and  better  law,  Moses  deemed  it  a prac- 
tical necessity  to  tolerate  what  he  did  not  see  his 
way  to  suppress.  Hence  Our  Lord’s  stern 
indeed,  but  deserved,  rebuke: 

1 This  direct  opposition  is  denoted  by  St.  Mark’s  use  of  the 
Greek  particle  8k  (but)  to  introduce  this  answer  of  Jesus.  (Cfr. 
Mk’s  similar  use  of  that  particle  in  his  preceding  verses.) 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  53 


For  your  hardness  of  heart 
he  wrote  you  this  commandment. 

In  hearing  it,  Jesus’  adversaries  must  have 
realized  at  once  how  telling  it  was  against  their 
own  position.  It  pointed  out  to  all  present,  the 
temporary  character  of  the  Mosaic  legislation 
regarding  divorce.  As  the  Jewish  lawgiver  had 
framed  it  in  view  of  a temporary  necessity,  it 
could  be  only  of  a temporary  duration.  Cen- 
turies therefore  after  it  had  been  promulgated, 
its  raison  d'etre  might  very  well  have  ceased; 
so  that  one,  like  Jesus,  might  pronounce  against 
it,  without  conflicting  with  it.  Again,  Our 
Lord’s  statement  disclosed  to  His  hearers  Moses’ 
personal  aversion  to  the  practice  of  divorce.  It 
was  because  he  had  not  seen  his  way  to  forbid  it 
altogether,  that  Israel’s  lawgiver  had  allowed  its 
existence  among  the  Jews.  Whence  it  clearly 
appeared  that  in  considering  divorce  as  wrong, 
Jesus,  far  from  being  at  variance  with  Moses, 
was  in  positive  harmony  with  him.  The  only 
way  for  the  Pharisees  to  evade  the  force  of  this 
part  of  Our  Lord’s  argument  would  have  been 
to  show  that  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  there  was  no 
trace  of  a desire  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  law- 
giver of  meeting  the  evil  inherent  in  divorce  and 
of  discountenancing  its  practice.  But  they  must 


54  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


have  known  too  well  this  passage  of  the  Mosaic 
Law — one  very  much  discussed  at  the  time,  as 
we  have  said — not  to  feel  that  such  an  attempt 
could  not  even  be  thought  of.  In  settling  in 
Deut.  xxiv,  1-4 — and  this  is  the  only  point 
directly  settled  in  the  passage — that  a man  must 
not  take  back  his  divorced  wife  after  she  has  con- 
tracted a second  marriage,  Moses  manifestly 
wants  to  compel  the  husband  to  pause  before  sev- 
ering the  marriage  tie  by  means  of  a bill  of 
divorce.  This  commandment  duly  warns  him 
that  whatever  his  present  ill-will  towards  his 
wife,  he  had  better  be  careful  before  proceeding 
to  a regular  divorce.  He  might  regret  such  a 
step  after  a while.  Chances  are  that  his  dis- 
missed wife  will  meantime  contract  a second  mar- 
riage, and  he  must  bear  in  mind  that  in  such  con- 
tingency he  will  no  longer  be  free  to  take  her 
back.  Again,  this  same  commandment  contains 
an  implicit  invitation  to  the  husband  who  has 
actually  divorced  his  wife,  to  consider  the  advis- 
ability of  taking  her  back  while  it  is  still  time, 
viz.:  before  “she  was  defiled”1  by  her  union 

1 This  expression  which  is  used  of  the  marriage  of  a divorced 
woman  in  Deut.  xxiv,  4,  is  the  one  applied  to  adultery  in  Levit. 
xviii,  20;  Numbers  v,  13,  14,  20.  Hence  the  significant  remark  of 
Keil:  “The  marriage  of  a divorced  woman  is  thus  treated 

implicitly  as  tantamount  to  adultery,  and  the  way  is  prepared  for 
the  teaching  of  Christ  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  ‘ Whoever  mar- 
rieth  her  that  is  put  away,  committeth  adultery  ’ in  Mt.  v,  32.” 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  55 


with  another  man.  It  thus  appears  that  as  far 
as  an  enactment  can  readily  disclose  Moses’ 
desire  of  discountenancing  the  practice  of 
divorce,  the  commandment  he  has  directly  in- 
scribed in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  discloses  it.  Besides 
this  explicit  commandment,  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  con- 
tains an  implicit  one,  the  very  one  to  which  the 
Pharisees  had  directly  referred  Our  Lord,  in 
their  answer:  “ Moses  allowed  to  write  a bill  of 
divorce  and  to  put  away,”  meaning  thereby  that 
Moses  had  permitted  divorce  under  the  condition 
that  the  husband  supply  his  wife  with  such  a 
document.1  The  fact  that  the  only  divorce 
whose  validity  was  assumed  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4, 
was  one  accompanied  by  the  writing  of  a bill  of 
divorce,  had  rightly  led  the  Jews  to  consider  this 
writing  as  required  by  their  great  lawgiver  for  a 
lawful  dismissal  of  a man’s  wife.  Now,  to  what 
did  this  regulation  point  if  not  to  Moses’  distinct 
consciousness  of  the  evil  consequences  of  divorce, 
and  to  a desire  on  his  part  of  discouraging  its 
use  as  far  as  it  lay  in  his  power?  Moses  knew 
to  what  undesirable  extent  the  right  of  divorce, 

1 Apparently  the  answer  of  the  Pharisees  formed  a conse- 
quential sentence,  in  which  the  consequence  was  expressed  by  the 
simple  conjunction  *)  which  is  represented  by  xcu,  in  St.  Mark’s 
Gospel.  It  is  in  view  of  this  that  Prof.  Allan  Menzies  ( The 
Earliest  Gospel,  p.  189)  renders  Mk.  x,  4,  as  follows:  “Moses 
allowed  a man  to  put  away  his  wife  on  writing  a certificate  of 
divorce  for  her.” 


56  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


vested  in  the  man,  placed  a wife  at  the  mercy 
of  her  husband;  and  since,  owing  to  the  hard- 
ness of  heart  of  his  people,  he  did  not  see  his 
way  to  abolish  divorce  altogether,  he  wanted  to 
regulate  it  in  a manner  that  would  effectively 
deter  them  from  its  use.  Of  such  a nature  was 
manifestly  his  regulation  that  the  husband  must 
supply  his  wife  with  a bill  of  divorce.  Many 
a man  who  would  have  easily  put  away  his  wife 
by  simple  word  of  mouth,  would  naturally  feel 
deterred  from  dismissing  her  by  the  consider- 
ation that  if  he  wants  to  do  so,  he  will  have  to 
write  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  get  it  signed  by 
willing  and  reliable  witnesses.  Again,  the  writ- 
ing of  that  bill  would  necessarily  compel  a hus- 
band to  reflect,  that  once  in  the  possession  of 
his  divorced  wife,  the  document  will  be  an  un- 
deniable proof  that  he  has  deliberately  and  regu- 
larly put  her  away,  and  that  consequently  she 
is  henceforth  perfectly  entitled  to  refuse  a recon- 
ciliation with  him,  however  sorry  he  may  feel 
for  having  dismissed  her,  or  even  to  contract  a 
second  marriage  which  will  for  ever  separate  her 
from  him.1 

1 These  remarks  are  true  with  regard  to  even  the  simplest  and 
most  primitive  form  of  a bill  of  divorce.  (Cfr.  J.  H.  Greenstone, 
art.  “Get”  (bill  of  divorce)  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  vol.  v, 
p.  646.) 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  57 


It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  Pharisees  could 
not  gainsay  directly  Our  Lord’s  pungent 
remark : 

For  your  hardness  of  heart 
he  wrote  you  this  commandment. 

They  could  not  deny  the  restrictive  and  tem- 
porary character  of  the  Mosaic  enactment  con- 
cerning divorce.  Still,  they  could  object  that  a 
man  was  not  wrong  in  using  a permission 
granted,  however  reluctantly,  by  the  great  law- 
giver of  Israel.  And  it  is  to  preclude  this  pos- 
sible objection  of  His  adversaries,  that  Jesus 
proceeds  at  once  to  show  how  despite  1 the  toler- 
ation of  divorce  by  Moses,  divorce  is  radically 
wrong  for  the  people  of  God: 

Mk.  x. 

6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  creation, 
male  and  female  he  made  them. 

7.  On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father 

and  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 

8.  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh; 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

9.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

1 This  opposition  is  denoted  by  Mk’s  use  of  the  particle 
(but)  at  the  beginning  of  x,  6. 


58  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


True  it  is,  argues  Our  Lord  against  the  Phari- 
sees, Moses  wrote  “you  this  commandment;” 
but  what  does  this  fact  prove?  Does  it  prove 
that  a man  is  right  in  putting  away  his  wife? 
Assuredly  not.  Although  tolerated  by  Moses, 
divorce  is  decidedly  wrong  because  it  goes 
against  God’s  primitive  and  unchanged  will 
anent  the  conjugal  union  between  a man  and  a 
woman.  To  establish  this  position  Jesus  brings 
back  His  opponents  to  the  beginning  of  the 
human  race  as  it  is  described  by  Moses  himself. 
Man  is  God’s  handiwork.  To  God’s  creative 
power  man  and  woman  owe  their  respective  con- 
stitution which  fits  them  for  the  closest  human 
relationship,  that  of  husband  and  wife: 

From  the  beginning  of  creation, 

male  and  female  he  made  them.  (Gen.  i,  27.) 

In  virtue  of  this  structural  unity  established 
by  the  Creator,  there  must  exist  between  husband 
and  wife  a union  superior  to  that  which  binds  a 
child  to  his  parents,  a union  so  compelling  that  a 
man  shall  leave  his  father  and  mother  for  his 
wife,  a union  so  intimate  that  it  will  make  of 
husband  and  wife  the  one  principle  that  trans- 
mits natural  life: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father 
and  mother, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  59 


and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh.  (Gen.  ii,  24.) 

The  union  once  consummated,  man  and 
woman  are  no  longer  simply  fitted  for  each 
other;  they  belong  together  and  form  the  one 
principle  whereby  God  intended  from  the  first, 
and  still  intends  to  perpetuate  human  life.  They 
have  been  thus  joined  together  by  God  Himself, 
and  plainly  their  physical  constitution  remains 
His  after,  as  before,  the  union.  The  marriage  tie 
is  unbreakable  according  to  God’s  primitive  and 
unchanged  will,  and  consequently  no  man  has  a 
right  to  put  it  asunder : 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 
What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

If  this  line  of  thought  of  Jesus  means  any- 
thing, it  means  that  a man’s  action  in  dismissing 
his  wife,  even  by  writing  for  her  a bill  of  divorce, 
is  decidedly  wrong.  It  remains  wrong  in  the 
eyes  of  conscience  and  religion  which  rightly  view 
it  as  opposed  to  the  divine  will,  although  it  be 
treated  as  valid  by  a law  which  tolerates  and 
regularizes  it  as  a necessary  evil.  As  is  well 
stated  by  a distinguished  Protestant  writer: 1 

1 Prof.  Hans  Hinrich  Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  vol.  i, 
p.  352  sq.  (Eng.  Transl.) 


60  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


“ When  the  Pharisees  appealed  from  Him  to 
Moses,  who  permitted  the  putting  away  of  a wife 
under  the  form  of  waiting  a bill  of  divorcement 
(Deut.  xxiv,  1),  He  declared  that  this  Mosaic 
ordinance  had  been  given  on  account  of  the  hard- 
ness of  heart  of  the  Jews.  He  meant  that  this 
ordinance  did  not  prove  that  a man  was  really 
entitled  to  put  away  his  wife,  and  would  be  held 
guiltless ; it  only  prescribed  a legally  valid  form 
of  the  dissolution  in  regard  to  the  actual  cases  of 
culpable  dissolution.  But  the  original  Divine 
decree  in  regard  to  marriage  was  the  word 
spoken  at  creation,  that  a man  and  his  wife  shall 
become  perfectly  one  (Mark  x,  2-8).  Where 
the  union  of  husband  and  wife  thus  rests  on  a 
Divine  command,  a human  divorce  could  not  be 
justifiable  (verse  9).” 

Humanly  speaking,  it  was  a bold  thing  on  Our 
Lord’s  part  thus  to  stand  alone  denouncing 
divorce  as  intrinsically  evil.  Bold,  indeed,  it  was, 
on  His  part,  thus  to  appeal  from  a Mosaic  regu- 
lation to  the  original  meaning  of  the  matrimonial 
institution.  The  remembrance  of  such  a scene 
easily  clung  to  the  mind  of  those  present,  and  it 
is  only  natural  to  regard  St.  Mark’s  account  of 
Jesus’  answer  to  the  Pharisees  on  this  memo- 
rable occasion,  as  distinctly  true  to  fact.  In  vain 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  Cl 


would  we  look  in  this  passage  of  our  second 
Evangelist  for  even  a word  that  would  betray 
his  desire  of  diminishing  the  opposition  of  Jesus’ 
doctrine  to  that  universally  received  at  the  time. 
In  point  of  fact,  if  St.  Mark’s  record  of  the  whole 
transaction  bespeaks  one  concern  on  his  part,  it 
is  that  of  putting  into  the  strongest  light,  and  at 
each  step,  the  contrast  which  existed  between 
Jesus  and  His  adversaries.  Again,  in  our  sec- 
ond Synoptist  here,  we  have  a faithful  repre- 
sentation of  Our  Lord’s  method  of  reasoning 
when  He  wishes  to  depart  from  the  common  view 
of  His  Jewish  contemporaries.  Instead  of  “ sim- 
ply grouping  together  the  decisions  of  the  Law 
in  order  to  maintain  their  validity  without  dis- 
tinction, He  weighs  them  one  against  another  by 
dwelling  upon  the  original  meaning  of  the  insti- 
tution He  is  discussing.  He  pursued  precisely 
the  same  method  when  He  considered  the  precept 
regarding  the  Sabbath  in  the  light  of  the  orig- 
inal purpose  which  governed  its  institution  as 
a day  of  rest  (Mk.  ii,  27 ).1  In  like  manner 
several  literary  particulars  may  be  easily  noticed 
in  Our  Lord’s  answer  to  the  Pharisees  which 
point  to  a very  primitive  and  objective  character 
of  its  account  in  St.  Mark’s  Gospel.  Of  this 

1 Oscar  Holtzmann,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  368,  footn.  1.  (Eng. 
Transl.,  1904.) 


62  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


description  are : ( 1 ) the  absence,  in  that  account, 
of  formulas  to  introduce  as  Scripture  words  bor- 
rowed from  Gen.  i,  27;  ii,  24:  Jesus  naturally 
dispensed  with  such  formulas  in  giving  out  words 
perfectly  known  to  the  Pharisees,  and  indeed 
to  all  present,  as  actual  passages  of  Holy  Writ; 
(2)  the  putting  of  the  two  passages  of  Genesis 
(i,  27;  ii,  24),  the  one  right  after  the  other, 
although  they  are  distant  from  each  other,  and 
are  not  meant  to  be  taken  together,  in  the  orig- 
inal text:  Jesus  acted  thus  in  harmony  with  the 
then-received  methods  of  quoting  and  interpret- 
ing Holy  Scripture;  (3)  the  scrupulous  accu- 
racy with  which  St.  Mark  gave  the  words  of 
Genesis  without  supplying  the  subjects,  how- 
ever necessary  such  supplying  might  seem  to 
complete  the  sentences  quoted  (for  instance,  St. 
Mark  wrote  simply:  “ Male  and  female  he  made 
(J.TTOi'qcrev  ) them,”  instead  of  “ Male  and  female 
God  made  them  ”)  : Jesus  had  probably  quoted 
most  strictly  those  words  as  reciting  them  to 
Pharisees,  that  is, to  men  most  punctilious  in  their 
quotations  of  the  Sacred  Text.  Lastly,  the  dis- 
tinct and  authoritative  tone  of  the  conclusive 
words  ascribed  to  Our  Lord: 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 

let  not  man  put  asunder 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  63 


stamps  them  with  that  impress  of  originality  and 
decision  which  characterized  the  genuine  utter- 
ances of  the  One  who  “ taught  with  authority, 
and  not  as  the  scribes  ” of  the  time.  (Cfr.  Mk. 
i,  22;  Mt.  vii,  29;  Lk.  iv,  32). 

V.  Christ’s  Teaching  Thus  then,  St.  Mark’s  ac- 
in  Mk.  x,  10-12.  count  of  Our  Lord’s  answer 
to  the  Pharisees  bears  an  unimpeachable  testi- 
mony to  Christ’s  exact  mind  concerning  divorce. 
It  records  with  an  equal  vividness  and  accuracy, 
the  captious  question,  “ Is  it  lawful  for  a man  to 
put  away  his  wife?  ” asked  Jesus  by  His  enemies; 
the  ready  manner  in  which  Our  Lord  realized 
its  malicious  purpose;  the  rapid  exchange 
of  opposite  questions  and  answers  between 
Him  and  His  inquirers;  and  lastly,  His  solemn 
and  unambiguous  declaration  that  divorce  is 
wrong  because  it  goes  against  a Divinely  consti- 
tuted union.  It  thus  forms  one  consistent  whole 
wherein  an  impartial  reader  finds  the  distinct 
proof  of  Jesus’  personal  and  emphatic  condem- 
nation of  divorce,  and  of  the  narrator’s  truthful 
care  of  recording  that  condemnation  in  the  most 
manifest  manner.  Had  we  therefore  no  further 
information  about  Christ’s  mind  concerning 
divorce,  we  should  still  feel  perfectly  justified  in 


64  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


affirming  that  the  Catholic  teaching  anent  the 
absolute  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie  among 
Christians  is  no  other  than  that  ascribed  to  Our 
Lord  in  one  of  the  most  primitive  records  of 
Christianity.  But  yet  this  further  information 
is  forthcoming.  It  is  supplied  by  St.  Mark  him- 
self, and  indeed  in  his  very  next  verses: 

Mk.  x. 

10.  And  in  the  house  again  the  disciples  asked  Him 
concerning  this. 

11.  And  He  says  to  them: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
and  shall  marry  another, 
commits  adultery  against  her; 

12.  And  if  she,  having  put  away  her  husband, 
shall  marry  another, 

commits  adultery. 

Whoever  studies  these  verses  of  our  second 
Gospel  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing  answer  of 
Our  Lord  to  the  Pharisees,  cannot  help  realizing 
how  strongly  they  confirm  the  view  we  have 
taken  of  that  answer.  Their  meaning,  briefly 
stated,  amounts  to  this:  the  union  between  hus- 
band and  wife  remains  unbroken  by  a dismissal, 
so  that  the  husband  or  the  wife  who  remarries 
after  the  separation  is  guilty  of  adultery.  We 
have  therefore  in  these  verses  a second  statement, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  65 


and  indeed  a more  explicit  one,  of  the  position 
which  Jesus  has  taken  up  in  answering  the  ques- 
tion of  His  adversaries:  “ Is  it  lawful  for  a man 
to  put  away  his  wife?  ” That  this  position  should 
now  be  more  distinctly  stated  is  naturally  ac- 
counted for  by  the  fact  that  Our  Lord  is  repre- 
sented as  speaking  no  longer  to  the  Pharisees, 
but  to  His  own  disciples.  In  addressing  the 
former,  Jesus  was  speaking  in  public,  that  is, 
under  a circumstance  when  one  usually  sets  forth 
with  considerable  reserve  a position  of  his  that 
goes  against  a universally  received  opinion  of 
the  day;  He  was  answering  a captious  question 
asked  by  ill-disposed  men  bent  on  misconstruing 
His  words,  so  that  He  had  naturally  to  use 
guarded  expressions  that  could  not  be  found 
fault  with,  or  be  easily  misrepresented;  He  was 
arguing  with  legal  experts  used  to  all  kinds  of 
chicanery,  and  consequently  had  to  frame  His 
own  answer  in  distinct  view  not  only  of  the  words 
which  they  had  used  in  their  question,  but  also 
of  their  methods  of  interpreting  the  Law  and 
of  testing  the  conformity  of  a statement  with 
the  numerous  and  apparently  conflicting  regu- 
lations of  Moses.  No  wonder  then  that,  before 
committing  Himself  to  a definite  position  and 
in  public,  Jesus  first  asked  for  the  Mosaic  com- 


66  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


mandment  in  variance  with  which  strictly  ortho- 
dox Pharisees  desired  to  place  Him  and  next 
reasoned  with  them  concerning  the  enactment 
to  which  they  had  referred  Him,  setting  over 
against  it  other  words  of  command  found  in  the 
same  Mosaic  Law.  In  thus  dealing  with  the 
question  of  His  well-known  enemies,  Our  Lord 
simply  followed  a manner  of  action  which  pru- 
dence would  have  dictated  to  any  man  under 
similar  circumstances.  But  evidently  this  man- 
ner of  action  was  no  longer  suitable  in  answer- 
ing His  disciples  when  they  questioned  Him 
about  the  lawfulness  of  divorce.  Their  asking 
was  not  prompted  by  a malicious  intent,  but  by 
a very  legitimate  desire  of  ascertaining  whether 
they  had  understood  aright  words  of  His  which, 
in  excluding  every  lawful  cause  of  divorce,  went 
beyond  the  strictest  Jewish  school  of  the  day, 
viz.,  that  of  Shammai,  which  considered  divorce 
as  allowed  only  for  the  cause  of  unchastity.  They 
were  His  own  select  and  trusted  friends  who 
made  their  inquiry  in  private : “ And  in  the  house 
again  the  disciples  asked  Him  concerning  this.” 
He  could  therefore  speak  freely  and  explicitly 
to  them.  Nay  more,  it  was  in  every  way  desir- 
able that  He  should  do  so.  He  had  chosen  them 
to  be  the  continuators  of  His  mission  to  the 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  67 


world,  the  faithful  heralds  of  His  doctrine,  and 
His  doctrine  on  divorce  was  in  their  eyes  a new 
one,  one  that  went  against  the  traditions  of  their 
race  and  also  against  all  existing  legislations  out- 
side of  Israel.  Their  understanding  was  dull 
and  limited,  as  He  was  well  aware,  and  it  be- 
hooved Him  to  speak  in  the  plainest  manner,  so 
that  they  would  take  in  the  exact  import  of  His 
mind  concerning  this  important  matter.  This 
He  actually  did.  Hence  the  more  direct  and 
explicit  character  of  His  answer  to  the  disciples 
which  appears  particularly  manifest  when  that 
answer  is  compared  with  the  one  He  had  made 
to  the  Pharisees : 

Mk.  x. 

10.  And  in  the  house  again  the  disciples  asked  Him 
concerning  this. 

11.  And  He  says  to  them: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
and  shall  marry  another, 
commits  adultery  against  her. 

12.  And  if  she,  having  put  away  her  husband, 
shall  marry  another, 

commits  adultery. 

This  then,  according  to  St.  Mark’s  Gospel — 
that  is,  according  to  one  of  the  earliest  documents 
of  Christ’s  teaching — is  the  full  mind  of  the 


68  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Master  speaking  to  men  whom  He  keeps  under 
His  special  training.  He  draws  for  them,  in  the 
plainest  manner,  the  consequences  which  follow 
strictly  from  the  position  He  has  taken  in  public 
concerning  divorce.  As  He  has  already  pro- 
claimed that  by  matrimony  God  Himself  makes 
husband  and  wife  perfectly  one,  and  rejected 
divorce  as  unlawfully  contrary  to  that  divinely 
constituted  union,  so  He  now  explicitly  states 
that  neither  of  the  two  parties  thus  joined  can 
repudiate  the  other  and  marry  again,  without 
committing  the  heinous  sin  of  adultery. 

VI.  A Difficulty  It  is  indeed  true  that  many  con- 
Examined.  temporary  critics,  among  whom 
may  be  mentioned  V.  Rose,  O.  P.,  ( Evangile 
selon  St.  Marc , p.  94,  Paris,  1905) , do  not  admit 
that  the  last  verse  of  St.  Mark: 

and  if  she,  having  put  away  her  husband, 
shall  marry  another, 
commits  adultery, 

contains  words  actually  uttered  by  Our  Lord, 
because  Moses  did  not  recognize  to  the  woman 
the  right  of  putting  away  her  husband.  They 
think  that  it  is  a sort  of  appendix  which  our  sec- 
ond Evangelist,  directly  writing  for  the  Gentiles, 
added  in  view  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  laws 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  69 


which  granted  the  right  of  dismissal  to  the 
woman  as  well  as  to  the  man.  Of  course,  this 
maimer  of  thinking  does  not  interfere  materially 
with  Jesus’  actual  frame  of  mind  concerning 
divorce:  in  ruling  out  a man’s  right  to  divorce, 
the  Saviour,  by  the  very  fact,  ruled  out  all 
divorce,  if  He  spoke  directly  in  view  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  since  man’s  right  to  divorce  was  the 
only  one  expressly  allowed  by  that  law.  Nor 
does  it  really  go  against  the  position  of  the  Cath- 
olic apologist  who  maintains  that  the  Church’s 
prohibition  of  divorce  under  the  penalty  of  adul- 
tery is  identical  with  the  one  ascribed  to  Our 
Lord  in  the  early  documents  of  Christianity. 
We  think,  however,  that  this  view  of  Mk.  x,  12, 
is  incorrect.  The  right  to  divorce  is  not  Our 
Lord’s  direct  object  in  His  answer  to  the  dis- 
ciples. He  wishes  to  tell  them  of  the  moral  pen- 
alty which  attaches  to  remarriage  after  the  repu- 
diation, as  is  clear  from  Mk.  x,  11,  where  He 
speaks  explicitly  of  a man  marrying  another 
wife,  as  committing  an  actual  adultery.  Now 
this  remarriage  may  be  effected  by  the  woman, 
as  well  as  by  the  man,  in  which  case  she  also  is 
guilty  of  adultery.  It  is  not  surprising  there- 
fore that  Jesus  should  have  spoken  distinctly  of 
the  woman  committing  adultery,  as  is  recorded 


70  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


in  Mk.  x,  12.  The  woman’s  right  to  dismiss  her 
husband  was  not  indeed  referred  to  in  the  Mosaic 
Law,  but  it  was  granted  by  the  Greek  and 
Roman  laws,  which  were  so  well  known  in  Pales- 
tine that  the  disciples  were  certainly  aware  of 
them:  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans  had  ruled 
over  the  Holy  Land  for  a long  time  and  formed 
a considerable  percentage  of  its  population  in 
Our  Lord’s  day.  Again,  it  was  well  known  to 
the  Jews  of  Christ’s  time  that  the  women  of  the 
princely  house  of  the  Herods  had  dismissed  their 
husbands  to  contract  a second  marriage,1  and 
it  is  particularly  significant  that  at  the  very  time 
indicated  in  Aik.  x,  1,  Jesus  was  passing  through 
the  territory  of  Herod  Antipas,  who  had  been 
married  to  a Herodian  princess  who  had  dis- 
missed her  husband.2  Moreover,  according  to 
A.  Edersheim  ( Sketches  of  Jewish  Life  in  the 
Days  of  Christ , p.  158),  “ the  wife  would  insist 
on  being  divorced  if  her  husband  were  a leper,  or 
affected  with  polypus,  or  engaged  in  a disagree- 
able or  dirty  trade,  such  as  that  of  a tanner  or 
coppersmith;  one  of  the  cases  in  which  divorce 

1Cfr.  Josephus,  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  Book  xv,  chap,  vii, 
§ 10,  and  Book  xviii,  chap,  v,  § 4. 

2 Cfr.  F.  C.  Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmis- 
sion, p.  99  sq.  (T.  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1906) ; Knabenbauer, 
S.J.,  in  Marcum,  p.  263  sq.  (Paris,  1894);  Lagrange,  O.P.,  Evan- 
gile  selon  St.  Marc,  p.  245  sq.  (Paris,  1911). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  71 


was  obligatory  was,  if  either  party  had  become 
heretical,  or  ceased  to  profess  Judaism.”  One 
therefore  readily  sees  how  the  Master  could  in 
answering  His  disciples  inveigh  against  a Jewish 
custom  of  the  day  regarding  a woman’s  dismis- 
sal of  her  husband,  and  be  prompted  after  con- 
demning a man’s  second  marriage  as  adultery, 
to  do  the  same  at  once  in  regard  to  a woman’s 
second  marriage.  That  He  actually  did  so,  as 
is  stated  in  Mk.  x,  12,  is  confirmed  by  St.  Paul’s 
knowledge  of  a distinct  command  of  the  Lord 
prohibiting  the  divorce  of  the  wife  as  well  as  of 
the  husband  (Cfr.  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11). 

VII.  General  To  conclude.  In  Mk.  x,  2-12,  we 
Conclusion.  find  Christ’s  public  and  private 
condemnation  of  divorce.  To  it,  the  Catholic 
apologist  may  even  now  turn  confidently,  to 
point  it  out  as  conveying  the  full  mind  of  His 
Master  and  Lord,  and  as  manifestly  identical 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  God  in  the 
course  of  ages.  In  prohibiting  divorce  among 
Christians  under  the  penalty  of  adultery,  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  simply  proves  faithful 
to  the  mission  intrusted  to  her:  “ Teach  all 
nations  all  things  whatsoever  I have  commanded 
you  ” (Matthew  xxviii,  19  sq.) . Like  her  Divine 


72  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Founder,  she  proclaims  that  no  one  bound  by 
holy  matrimony  is  relieved  of  the  marriage  tie 
however  careful  his  or  her  compliance  with  all 
the  requirements  of  a human  law.  In  the  eyes 
of  Christ,  there  is  no  such  a thing  as  a lawful 
divorce,  and  whoever  acts  as  if  there  were  and 
contracts  a second  marriage,  commits  adultery. 


CHAPTER  III 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  ST.  LUKE  XVI,  18 

iewed  in  the  light  of  literary  and  historical 


research,  Mk.  x,  2-12,  ascribes  to  Our  Lord 
a doctrine  concerning  divorce  which  is  the  very 
same  as  the  one  taught  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  down  to  the  present  day.  In  this  passage 
of  our  second  Synoptic  Gospel  Jesus  affirms 
publicly  that  despite  Moses’  toleration  of  divorce 
the  formal  dismissal  of  a wife  by  her  husband  is 
unlawful.  He  proclaims  in  the  hearing  of  all, 
that  Israel’s  lawgiver  regulated  the  practice  of 
divorce,  simply  because,  owing  to  the  hardness 
of  heart  of  his  Jewish  contemporaries,  he  did  not 
see  his  way  to  suppress  it  altogether.  On  the 
basis  of  texts  found  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  He 
argues  that  the  Creator  established  from  the  first 
a perfect  unity  between  husband  and  wife,  and 
that  consequently  the  man  who  presumes  to 
break  the  marriage  tie  goes  against  God’s  primi- 
tive and  unchanged  will.  To  this  plain  declara- 


74  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


tion  of  Our  Lord’s  mind  concerning  divorce,  St. 
Mark’s  record  subjoins  another  which  Jesus 
made  in  private  to  His  own  disciples,  and  which 
is,  if  anything,  more  explicit  than  the  former. 
Of  His  own  authority,  He  emphatically  con- 
demns as  guilty  of  adultery  the  consort,  husband 
or  wife,  who  dares  to  attempt  a second  union 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  other  party.  Such  is 
the  obvious  meaning  of  Mk.  x,  2-12,  and  the 
Catholic  apologist  has  a perfect  right  to  point  it 
out  as  a distinct  proof  that,  in  maintaining  the 
absolute  indissolubility  of  a valid  and  consum- 
mated Christian  marriage,  the  Church  remains 
faithful  to  the  doctrine  of  her  Divine  Founder. 
This  passage  of  our  second  Gospel,  however,  is 
not  the  only  one  in  the  early  documents  of  Chris- 
tianity to  which  the  contemporary  apologist  can 
confidently  appeal  for  such  a purpose.  And  it 
is  the  object  of  the  present  chapter  to  show  that 
Lk.  xvi,  18,  bears  witness  to  the  same  teaching 
of  Christ  concerning  divorce  as  is  set  forth  in 
Mk.  x,  2-12.1 


1 The  reader  will  find  in  parallel  columns  on  a special  page,  at 
the  end  of  this  chapter:  (1)  the  Greek  text  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  and  of 
its  parallels  in  Mt.  and  Mk.;  (2)  a direct  translation  of  these  pas- 
sages from  the  original  Greek.  In  our  rendering  of  the  second 
part  of  Lk.  xvi.  18;  Mt.  v.  32,  and  xix,  9,  we  have  preserved  the 
Greek  construction  of  the  sentences. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  75 


I.  Christ’s  Teaching  The  single  verse  which  bears 

in  Lk.  xvi,  18.  i-  -i  j* 

directly  on  divorce  in  our 

third  Gospel  may  he  literally  rendered  as 

follows: 

Lk.  xvi,  18. 


Every  one  who  puts  away  his  wife 

and  marries  another 

commits  adultery; 

and  he  who  marries 

one  put  away  from  a husband 

commits  adultery. 


Considered  in  themselves,  these  words  of  Jesus 
to  “ the  Pharisees  ” (Cfr.  Luke  xvi,  14,  15)  con- 
vey distinctly  Christ’s  mind  regarding  divorce. 
In  Lk.  xvi,  18,  as  in  Mk.  x,  2-12,  Our  Lord 
places  Himself  in  direct  opposition  to  the  univer- 
sally-received notion  of  His  day  that  the  formal 
dismissal  of  a woman  hy  her  husband  broke  the 
marriage  tie  and  made  it  lawful  for  both  the  dis- 
missing man  and  the  dismissed  woman  to  enter 
upon  a second  marriage  (Cfr.  Mt.  v,  31;  xix, 
3,  7 ; Mk.  x,  2,  4) . In  His  eyes,  a man’s  dismissal 
of  his  wife  releases  neither  consort  from  the  bond 
of  matrimony.  Despite  a man’s  will  to  set  him- 
self free  from  the  marriage  tie  by  putting  away 
his  wife  in  a legal  manner,  he  still  remains  her 
husband  before  God,  so  that  if  he  marries  another 


76  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


woman,  however  free  this  woman  might  herself 
be  with  regard  to  marriage,  he  is  guilty  of 
adultery : 

Every  one  who  puts  away  his  wife 
and  marries  another 
commits  adultery. 

Despite  also  a man’s  expressed  will  of  releas- 
ing his  wife  from  all  marriage  obligation  to  him, 
so  that  as  far  as  he  is  concerned  she  is  free  to 
contract  another  union,  she  is  still  before  God 
that  man’s  wife,  and  in  consequence,  another 
man,  however  free  he  might  otherwise  be  to  con- 
tract a lawful  marriage,  cannot  marry  her  with- 
out incurring  the  guilt  of  adultery: 

and  he  who  marries 

one  put  away  from  a husband 

commits  adultery. 

It  will  be  easily  noticed  that  the  terms  used 
by  Our  Lord  in  Lk.  xvi,  18,  are  such  as  to  ex- 
clude any  and  every  ground  that  would  justify 
a second  union.  The  dismissing  husband,  who- 
ever he  may  be  and  whatever  motive  may  actuate 
him  (ttSs  6 anoXvwv),  is  an  adulterer  0 oiy^'a)  by  the 
very  fact  that,  knowing  himself  to  be  a divorced 
man,  he  takes  another  wife  ( Kai  yafxuiv  ert/oav).  An 
exactly  similar  consequence  of  the  formal  dis- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  77 


missal  of  a man’s  wife  affects  any  man  who  unites 
himself  in  wedlock  to  the  woman  supplied  with 
a document  which  proves  to  him  that  she  has  been 
regularly  divorced;  by  the  very  fact  that  the 
second  man  enters  upon  a marriage  with  one 
whom  he  knows  to  be  a divorced  woman,  he  also 
commits  adultery  (kcu  6 aTroXtXvixivrjv  a7ro  avSpos  yafxwv 
/MOi^evet  ).  Plainly  then,  according  to  our  third,  as 

according  to  our  second,  Synoptic  Gospel,  there 
is  no  such  a thing  as  a lawful  divorce.  Christ’s 
words,  as  recorded  by  both  Evangelists,  are  to 
one  and  the  same  effect:  the  remarriage,  either 
of  a divorced  man  or  of  a divorced  woman,  is 
tainted  with  adultery. 

II.  Lk.  xvi,  18,  in  the  A strong  confirmation  of  the 
Light  of  the  Context.  meaning  just  set  forth  as  the 

obvious  sense  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  may  be  drawn  from 
the  connection  of  that  verse  with  the  immediately 
preceding  verses  in  our  third  Gospel.  The  whole 
passage  made  up  of  Lk.  xvi,  14-18,  reads  as 
follows: 

14.  And  the  Pharisees,  being  lovers  of  money, 
also  heard  all  these  things,  and  scoffed  at  Him. 

15.  And  He  said  to  them: 

You  are  those  who  justify  yourselves  before  men, 
but  God  knows  your  hearts ; 


78  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


for  what  is  exalted  among  men 
is  an  abomination  before  God. 

16.  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  until  John. 

From  that  time,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  announced, 
and  every  one  forces  his  way  into  it. 

17.  But  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass  away, 
than  for  one  tittle  of  the  Law  to  fail. 

18.  Every  one  who  puts  away  his  wife 
and  marries  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  he  who  marries 

one  put  away  from  a husband 

commits  adultery. 

Whoever  is  familiar  with  St.  Luke’s  literary 
methods  of  composition  will  not  doubt,  for  a 
moment,  that  there  must  be  a leading  idea  that 
connects  the  component  parts  of  this  short  sec- 
tion of  our  third  Gospel.1  Bearing  this  in  mind, 
he  will  easily  make  out  that  this  idea  is  no  other 
than  that  of  setting  forth  Our  Lord’s  rebuke  of 
the  hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees  who  deceived  men, 
but  not  God,  by  their  loud  professions  of  the 
highest  regard  for  the  Law  in  its  minutest  par- 
ticulars. According  to  these  conceited  leaders 
of  the  Jews,  the  Law  was  ever  to  be  maintained 

1 In  point  of  fact,  the  manner  in  which  St.  Luke  has  inverted 
two  verses  of  our  first  Gospel  (Mt.  xi,  12,  13),  to  frame  out  of 
them  one  single  verse  of  this  section  (Lk.  xvi,  16),  shows  that 
the  component  elements  of  Lk.  xvi,  14-18,  were  not  put  together 
without  any  actual  deliberation  on  the  part  of  our  third  Evangelist. 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  79 


among  the  chosen  people,  so  that,  at  no  time, 
could  any  of  its  provisions  be  considered  as  anti- 
cpiated.  How  then,  argued  Jesus,1  could  they 
without  hypocrisy,  treat  as  null  and  void  one  of 
the  most  important  and  clearest  enactments  of 
the  Law,  viz. : the  primitive  Divine  command  in 
Gen.  ii,  24,  which  proclaimed  the  absolute  indis- 
solubility of  the  marriage  tie?  The  point  was 
all  the  better  taken  because  these  enemies  of  the 
Saviour  often  accused  Him  of  destroying  the 
Law.  No,  it  was  not  He — any  more  than  John, 
who  before  Him  had  announced  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  attracted  crowds  anxious  to  fit  them- 
selves to  enter  into  it — that  did  away  with  the 
ever-binding  character  of  the  Law.  It  was  they 
who  really  went  against  it  with  regard,  for  in- 
stance, to  the  marriage  bond,  despite  their  mis- 
leading professions  of  a perfect  attachment  to 
the  smallest  regulations  of  the  Law.2 

1 The  perennial  character  of  the  Law  is  plainly  assumed  by  Our 
Lord  in  the  Parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  which  follows  imme- 
diately, Lk.  xvi,  14-18.  (Cfr.  Lk.  xvi,  29,  31.) 

2 In  thus  recording  Our  Lord’s  words  concerning  divorce  on 
the  occasion  of  a particular  rebuke  of  the  Pharisees,  and  in  pre- 
senting them  as  an  instance  of  Christ’s  actual  regard  for  the  Law, 
St.  Luke  combined  the  circumstances  which  are  assigned  to  their 
delivery  in  the  other  two  Synoptics:  in  both  Mk.  x,  2-12  and  Mt. 
xix,  1-9,  Our  Lord’s  words  concerning  divorce  are  recorded  on 
the  occasion  of  a particular  attempt  of  the  Pharisees  to  set  Him 
at  variance  with  the  Law,  which  drew  upon  them  the  stern  rebuke : 


80  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Such  is  the  general  purport  of  Lk.  xvi,  14-18; 
such  also  is  the  line  of  thought  whereby  St.  Luke 
connects  the  last  verse  of  that  section  (Lk.  xvi, 
18)  with  its  immediately  preceding  verses  (Lk. 
xvi,  14-17).  Now,  this  strongly  confirms  the 
obvious  meaning  of  Our  Lord’s  declaration  as 
recorded  in  Lk.  xvi,  18: 


Every  one  who  puts  away 
his  wife 

and  marries  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  lie  who  marries 

one  put  away  from  a husband 

commits  adultery. 

It  shows  plainly  that  in  quoting  these  words  of 
Jesus,  St.  Luke  intended  to  set  them  forth  as 
containing  a doctrine  of  His  concerning  divorce, 
which  was  at  total  variance  with  the  view  of  the 
Pharisees  of  His  time,  and  which  alone  was  com- 
patible with  the  ever-binding  force  of  the  Law. 
They  regarded  a bill  of  divorce,  once  given  to  a 


“ For  your  hardness  of  heart,  he  (Moses)  wrote  you  this  com- 
mandment;” in  Mt.  v,  they  are  set  forth  as  one  of  the  instances 
which  illustrate  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  did  not  destroy,  but 
fulfilled  the  Law  (Cf.  Mt.  v,  17),  and  which,  on  that  account,  fol- 
low Christ’s  solemn  declaration  in  Mt.  v,  18,  that  “ till  heaven  and 
earth  pass  away,  one  jot,  or  one  tittle  shall  not  pass  away,”  with 
which  one  may  compare  the  declaration  to  the  same  effect  in  Lk. 
xvi,  17. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  81 


wife  by  her  husband,  as  rendering  two  things 
perfectly  lawful:  (1)  the  remarriage  of  the  dis- 
missing husband  to  another  woman;  (2)  the 
marriage  of  a dismissed  woman  upon  her  show- 
ing a regular  bill  of  divorce.  He,  on  the  con- 
trary, denied  the  lawfulness  of  both  the  one  and 
the  other,  as  is  obviously  stated  in  Lk.  xvi,  18. 
The  Pharisees  admitted  a man’s  full  right  to 
divorce  his  wife;  Jesus  rejected  it  under  the  pain 
of  adultery.  In  regarding  the  marriage  as  actu- 
ally severed  by  a man’s  will  to  that  effect,  the 
opponents  of  Jesus  really  assumed  that  God’s 
will  decreeing  in  the  first  pages  of  the  Law  a 
perfect,  and  hence  unbreakable,  unity  between 
husband  and  wife: 

Gen.  ii,  24. 

Wherefore  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and  mother. 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  they  shall  become  one  flesh; 

had  been  made  void  by  Moses’  later  regulation 
(Deuteronomy  xxiv,  1-4)  concerning  the  prac- 
tice of  divorce.  In  teaching  that  the  marriage 
bond  subsisted  entire  between  the  dismissing  hus- 
band and  the  dismissed  wife,  Jesus  held  alone  a 
position  consistent  with  the  everlasting  force  of 
the  Law.  Despite  any  and  every  subsequent 


82  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


legislation  framed  in  view  of  whatever  circum- 
stances before  or  since  John,  the  original  Divine 
decree  had  not  failed ; it  remained  in  full  vigor 
and  for  all  times  to  come: 

Lk.  xvi. 

16.  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  until  John. 

From  that  time,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  announced, 
and  every  one  forces  his  way  into  it. 

17.  But  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass  away, 
than  for  one  tittle  of  the  Law  to  fail. 

Whoever  then,  interprets  impartially  Lk.  xvi, 
18,  in  the  light  of  the  immediately  preceding 
verses  (Lk.  xvi,  14-17),  must  take  in  their  ob- 
vious sense  the  words  of  Our  Lord  quoted  in 
Lk.  xvi,  18 : it  is  this  obvious  sense  which  allowed 
our  third  Evangelist  to  record  them  in  a section 
wherein  the  Pharisees  are  charged  with  hypo- 
critically setting  aside  the  ever-binding  force  of 
the  Law  while  they  loudly  professed  to  keep  it 
intact.  We  therefore  conclude  that  in  writing 
Lk.  xvi,  18,  our  third  Synoptic  cited  the  words 
of  Jesus  as  ruling  out  every  remarriage  after 
divorce  under  the  pain  of  adultery,  and  conse- 
quently as  containing  the  same  doctrine  of  Christ 
as  is  set  forth  in  Mk.  x,  2-12, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  83 


III.  Lk.  xvi,  18,  Compared  To  the  foregoing  confir- 

with  Parallel  Passages.  mation  of  the  obvious 

meaning  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  we  may  add  another,  and 
if  anything,  a still  stronger  one.  It  amounts  to 
this.  A careful  comparison  of  that  verse  of  our 
third  Evangelist  with  its  direct  parallels  in  the 
other  two  Synoptic  Gospels  shows  that  St.  Luke 
framed  it  as  a most  distinct  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine embodied  in  Mk.  x,  2-12.  The  following  is 
an  outline  of  the  evidence  in  favor  of  this 
position. 

It  is  quite  sure  that  the  wording  of  Lk.  xvi,  18 : 

Every  one  putting  away 
his  wife 

and  marrying  another 
commits  adultery, 
and  he,  one  put  away 
from  a husband 
marrying 

commits  adultery ; 1 

bears  a close  literary  relation  to  the  two  passages 
of  our  first  Gospel 2 which  record  Our  Lord’s 
words  concerning  divorce: 

lrThe  Greek  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  is  rendered  here  most  literally  to 
preserve  all  its  literary  features,  even  the  inversion. 

2 In  rendering  these  two  passages  of  St.  Matthew  we  have  also 
preserved  the  inversion  of  the  Greek:  “he,  one  put  away  shall 
marry  (marrying),  commits  adultery.” 


84  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  v,  32. 

Every  one  putting  away 
his  wife 

except  because  of  fornica- 
tion 

makes  her  commit  adul- 
tery, 

and  whoever,  one  put  away 
shall  marry 
commits  adultery. 


Mt.  xix,  9. 

Whoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 
commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away 

marrying 

commits  adultery. 


The  opening  lines  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  are  identical 
with  those  of  Mt.  v,  32 : 

Mt.  v.  Lk.  xvi. 

Every  one  putting  away  Every  one  putting  away 
his  wife.  his  wife. 


Lk’s  third  line:  “and  marrying  another” 
(koI  yafxuv  eTepav)  corresponds  manifestly  to  the 
fourth  line  of  Mt.  xix,  9:  “and  shall  marry 
another  ” (kcu  ya fxyo-rj  aWrjv) . Its  two  differences 
from  Mt’s  line  can  be  easily  accounted  for:  (1) 
St.  Luke  has  modified  Mt’s  future  tense  “ shall 
marry  ” (ya^rjarj)  into  a present  participle  “ mar- 
rying ” (ya/xwv)  consistently  with  his,  and  also 
Mt’s  use  of  the  present  participle  “ putting 
away  ” (airoXi liov)  in  the  opening  line  of  the  sen- 
tence; (2)  Lk’s  preference  for  erepos  to  a AAoS 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  85 


throughout  his  Gospel  and  the  book  of  the  Acts  1 
has  led  him  to  write  here  kripav  instead  of  Mt’s 
a\\rjv;  Lk’s  next  expression:  “commits  adul- 
tery (/xoixevei)  is  the  direct  equivalent  also  of  Mt’s 
next  expression  in  xix,  9:  “ commits  adultery  ” 
(fxoLxaTa i),  with  this  sole  difference:  that  for  Mt’s 
passive  form  St.  Luke  has  substituted  the  active 
as  better  Greek  when  speaking  of  a man.  The 
second  part  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  is  likewise  closely 
related  to  the  corresponding  second  part  of  Mt. 
xix,  9: 

Lk.  xvi,  18.  Mt.  xix,  9. 

and  he,  one  put  away  and  lie,  one  put  away 

from  a husband 

marrying  (yapoy)  marrying  (ya^o-as) 

commits  adultery  (/AoiyeJa ) commits  adultery  (/xoiyaTat.) 

The  likeness  of  Lk’s  text  to  that  of  Mt.  is 
plainly  evidenced  here  by  the  whole  construction 
and  vocabulary.  The  differences  between  the 
two  passages  are  certainly  of  Lk’s  own  making: 
he  adds  the  clause  “ from  a husband  ” in  accord- 
ance with  his  wont  of  supplying  what  is  implied 
in  the  documents  at  his  disposal  (Cfr.  I Cor.  vii, 
10)  ; he  uses  the  indicative  “ marrying  ” (yap&v) 

1 Cfr.  W.  F.  Moulton  and  A.  S.  Geden,  a Concordance  to  the 
Greek  New  Testament  (New  York,  1900);  Sir  John  C.  Hawkins, 
Horae  Synopticae,  p.  1G  (Oxford,  1899). 


86  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


instead  of  Mt’s  aorist  (ya/^o-as)  in  harmony  with 
what  he  has  done  in  the  first  part  of  the  sen- 
tence, and  for  a similar  reason,  he  employs  the 
form  /XOL\evei  instead  of  Mt’s  noixarai  in  speaking 
of  an  adulterer. 

Thus  far  our  comparison  of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  with 
Mt.  v,  32,  and  xix,  9,  establishes  the  general  fact 
that  our  third  Evangelist  has  worded  his  text  in 
full  view  of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel.  His  close 
literary  resemblances  here  point  to  his  depend- 
ence on  Mt’s  parallel  texts,  while  his  differences 
hitherto  noticed  are  clearly  intended  variations 
from  the  same  passages.  Whoever  bears  this  in 
mind  will  readily  admit  that  the  absence  of  Mt’s 
restrictive  clause:  “ except  on  account  of  forni- 
cation ” from  Lk’s  text  i$  no  mere  oversight  on 
the  part  of  our  third  Evangelist.  The  clause  is 
found  in  both  Mt.  v,  32,  and  Mt.  xix,  9,  and  its 
importance  is  manifest  in  texts  purporting  to 
record  Our  Lord’s  words  on  the  vexed  question 
of  divorce.  Besides,  it  is  a well-known  fact  that 
in  Christ’s  time  all  the  Jews  regarded  divorce  as 
perfectly  lawful  in  at  least  one  case,  viz.,  when  a 
wife  had  proved  unfaithful  to  her  marriage  vow. 
Again,  since  St.  Luke  agrees  with  St.  Matthew 
in  representing  the  words  of  Jesus  as  addressed 
to  the  Pharisees,  our  third  Synoptist  had  appar- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  87 


ently  the  same  reason,  on  that  score,  as  our  first 
Evangelist  for  recording  the  exceptive  clause. 
Finally  it  behooved  all  the  more  St.  Luke  to  pre- 
serve Mt’s  clause,  because  he  was  writing  for 
Gentile  readers  who  might  not  be  aware  of  the 
one  cause  for  which  the  Jews  admitted  that  a 
man  could  lawfully  dismiss  his  wife.  We  must 
therefore  regard  as  certain  that  our  third  Synop- 
tist  omitted  deliberately  Mt’s  exceptive  clause, 
supposing,  as  can  hardly  be  doubted,  that  the 
clause  existed  in  the  texts  of  St.  Matthew  which 
St.  Luke  was  utilizing.1 

How,  then,  shall  we  account  for  this  inten- 
tional omission  of  Mt’s  exceptive  clause  on  the 
part  of  our  third  Evangelist?  Briefly  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner.  In  framing  his  text  out  of  Mt. 
v,  32,  and  xix,  9,  St.  Luke  had  distinctly  in  view 
Mk.  x,  11,  12: 

11.  Whoever  shall  put  away 

his  wife 

and  shall  marry  another 
commits  adultery  against  her, 

12.  and  if  she  having  put  away 

her  husband 

shall  marry  another 

commits  adultery. 

1 This  point  of  textual  criticism  will  be  discussed  in  our  subse- 
fflient  examination  of  Mt.  xix,  9. 


88  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 

These  two  verses  of  St.  Mark  represent  Jesus 
as  declaring  guilty  of  adultery  any  party,  hus- 
band or  wife,  that  remarries  after  divorce.  They 
absolutely  exclude  the  idea  that  this  remarriage 
is  an  adulterous  union  only  in  the  case  of  the 
man  who  puts  away  his  wife  for  any  other  cause 
but  that  of  unfaithfulness.  They  plainly  make 
the  very  fact  of  a second  marriage  after  divorce 
the  actual  cause  of  adultery.  And  there  is  no 
doubt  that  St.  Luke  clearly  saw  that  such  was 
the  import  of  Mk.  x,  11-12.  There  is  no  doubt 
either  that  bearing  this  in  mind  and  examining 
carefully  Mt,  v,  32,  and  xix,  9: 


Mt.  v,  32. 

Every  one  putting  away 

his  wife 

except  because  of  fornica- 
tion 

makes  her  commit  an  adul- 
tery, 

and  whoever,  one  put 
away 

shall  marry 

commits  adultery, 


Mt.  xix,  9. 

Whoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 
and  shall  marry  another 
commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away 

marrying 
commits  adultery, 


our  third  Evangelist  considered  the  wording  of 
these  two  passages  of  St.  Matthew  as  genuinely 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  89 


consistent  with  the  presentment  of  the  matter  by 
our  second  Evangelist.  To  his  mind,  a contra- 
diction on  this  point  naturally  appeared  impos- 
sible on  the  part  of  these  two  writers  who  agreed 
in  recording  how  in  a discussion  with  the  Phari- 
sees Jesus  had  openly  ascribed  Moses’  permis- 
sion of  divorce  to  “ the  hardness  of  heart  ” of  the 
Jews  (Mk.  x,  5;  Mt.  xix,  8),  how  He  had  dis- 
tinctly opposed  to  that  Mosaic  toleration  the 
Divine  decree  which  settled  that  husband  and 
wife  became  “ one  flesh  ” by  the  use  of  marriage 
(Mk.  x,  8;  Mt.  xix,  5,  6),  and  had  solemnly 
declared:  “What  therefore  God  has  joined 

together,  let  not  man  put  asunder”  (Mk.  x,  9; 
Mt.  xix,  6).  To  St.  Luke’s  mind  it  naturally 
appeared  impossible  that  since  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Mark  thus  agreed  in  setting  forth  Christ’s 
total  opposition  to  divorce,  they  should,  in  the 
very  same  passage,  disagree  in  recording  Our 
Lord’s  words  concerning  the  precise  action 
whereby  a man  broke  the  unity  willed  from  the 
first  by  the  Creator,  and  made  himself  guilty  of 
adultery.  Convinced  of  this,  and  looking  closely 
into  Mt.  v,  82,  and  Mt.  xix,  9,  he  easily  noticed 
the  fact  that  in  neither  of  these  passages  is  a man 
charged  with  the  actual  commission  of  adultery, 
except  when  he  is  expressly  connected  with  a 


90  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


marriage  after  divorce.  Thus,  in  the  first  part 
of  Mt.  v,  32: 

Every  one  putting  away 
his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  an  adultery, 

it  is  indeed  stated  that  if  a man  pmts  away  his 
wife  for  any  other  cause  than  that  of  fornication, 
he  “ makes  her  commit  an  adultery,”  that  is,  he 
is  responsible  for  leading  her  to  becoming  an 
adulteress ; but  he  is  not  charged  with  the  actual 
commission  of  adultery:  St.  Matthew  does  not 
say  that  such  a one  “ commits  adultery.”  On 
the  contrary,  in  the  first  part  of  Mt.  xix,  9: 

Whoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 
and  shall  marry  another 
commits  adultery, 

a man  in  exactly  the  same  conditions  as  are 
described  in  the  first  part  of  Mt.  v,  32,  in  so  far 
as  the  putting  away  of  his  wife  is  concerned,  is 
branded  as  an  adulterer,  “ commits  adultery,” 
because  he  is  now  contemplated  as  adding  a fur- 
ther action  to  the  one  whereby  he  put  away  his 
wife,  and  that  additional  action  is  precisely  a sec- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  91 


ond  marriage:  “ and  shall  marry  another.”  That 
it  is  the  remarriage  of  a divorced  party  that 
stamps  a union  with  the  guilt  of  adultery  is  made 
plainer  still,  if  anything,  by  the  wording  of  the 
second  part  of  both  Mt.  v,  32,  and  Mt.  xix,  9 : 


and  whoever,  one  put  and  he,  one  put  away 


For,  in  this  second  part  of  both  Mt.  xix,  9,  a 
man  is  condemned  as  an  adulterer  solely  in  the 
event  of  his  contracting  marriage  (note  the  tense 
forms  in  the  Greek:  ya/^077  “shall  marry,” 
yafirjo-as  “ marrying  ”)  with  a divorced  woman. 

Thus  then,  St.  Luke  distinctly  perceived  that 
St.  Matthew  was  really  at  one  with  St.  Mark 
in  representing  Christ  as  condemning  every 
remarriage  after  divorce  as  an  adultery.  He 
clearly  saw  that  Mt’s  restrictive  clause,  “ except 
for  fornication,”  did  not  make  the  actual  com- 
mission of  adultery  depend  on  another  cause 
besides  remarriage.  He  therefore  felt  free  to 
preserve  that  clause  since  it  was  found  in  our 
first  Gospel,  or  to  omit  it  since  it  was  absent  from 
the  parallel  passage  in  our  second  Synoptic.  On 


Mt.  v. 


Mt.  xix. 


away 

shall  marry, 
commits  adultery. 


marrying, 
commits  adultery. 


92  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


the  one  hand,  to  insert  it  into  his  own  redaction 
of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  would  cause  him  to  utilize  to  its 
full  extent  Mt’s  text  in  v,  32,  and  xix,  9.  On  the 
other  hand,  to  leave  it  out  would  enable  him  to 
transform  Mt’s  record  of  Christ’s  words  into  a 
more  distinct  statement  of  an  absolute  condem- 
nation of  all  remarriage  after  divorce.1  It  is  the 
latter  course  which  he  followed,  thereby  supply- 
ing us  with  a strong  proof  of  the  fact  that  in 
framing  Lk.  xvi,  18,  our  third  Evangelist  delib- 
erately conveyed  the  same  strict  doctrine  of  Jesus 
as  is  embodied  in  Mk.  x,  2-12:  every  remarriage 
after  divorce  is  forbidden  under  the  pain  of 
adultery.2 

VI.  Con-  In  whatever  way,  then,  the  unbiased  in- 
clusion. terpreter  examines  Lk.  xvi,  18,  whether 
in  the  obvious  meaning  of  its  words,  or  in  its  con- 
text, or  again  in  its  form  as  compared  with  that 
of  the  parallel  texts  in  the  other  two  Synoptic 
Gospels,  he  is  led  to  the  general  position  set  forth 

1 In  reference  to  the  form  adopted  here  by  St.  Luke  (Lk.  xvi, 
18),  Prof.  H.  J.  Holtzmann  ( die  Synoptiker,  3d  edit.,  Leipsig, 
1901;  p.  389)  pertinently  remarks:  “ Ohne  Zweifel  gibt  diesmal 
Lc.  den  Gedanken  in  seiner  durchsischtigsten  Form:  Ehe  bricht, 
wer  sein  Weib  entlaesst  und  eine  andere  heirathet,  und  wer  eine 
Entlassene  heirathet 

2 On  the  various  points  discussed  in  this  chapter,  see  particu- 
larly Knabenbauer,  S.J.,  in  Evangelium  secundum  Lucam,  p.  467 
sqq.  (Paris,  1896). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  93 


at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter.  He  cannot  helj) 
admitting  that  St.  Luke  agrees  with  St.  Mark 
in  representing  as  the  explicit  teaching  of  Christ 
regarding  divorce  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  down  to  the  present  day.  Well, 
therefore,  may  the  Catholic  apologist  point  back 
to  both  our  second  and  our  third  Gospels,  as  to 
early  documents  of  Christianity  which  prove  that, 
despite  all  assertions  to  the  contrary,  the  Church 
of  God  is  simply  re-echoing  the  voice  of  her 
Divine  Founder  concerning  the  absolute  indis- 
solubility of  holy  matrimony,  when  she  proclaims 
that  whoever  avails  himself  or  herself  of  a legal 
form  of  divorce  and  contracts  a new  marriage 
is  guilty  of  the  sin  of  adultery. 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES  TO  Lk.  xvi,  18. 


94  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


S . g I 

» I •«  .1  s I 
« l » i “ l 


> 2 
W a 


a +3 

ci  «j  3 

a a 

M3 


a I 

*3 


S "3  5 

o s 2 


*8  a 
s 3 
S "3 


b a 
s a 


5=5 

o>  £ « 


p- 

/< 

8-  /< 


**  |l|  il 

o -p*  'p~  '3  © "3 

* p a.  § 3.  § 


o < 
*8 


“ £■ 
8 ~o 
* ,< 


11 
S X 

s.  s 
^ '« 
'P-  51 

-3  'a 

8 ^ 


8 « 
'E-  (3 

I * 

8 3 

^ 3. 


p5  £ 

£ £ 
§;  * 

£ a 


£ A 


u © 3 

fi§ 

H <3  - 

Xi  ■-  « 
« g -3 

•2  a •« 

3 o 3 


C"  u 

•2  © 


b a 

«s  s 

a s 


3 

O 

b >» 

« 3 

>. 

8 

8 

o 

8 & 
3 53 

& 

’3 

8 3 

<N 

03 

> 

8 

* ft 

M 

.9 

'o 

© 

*Z2  ® 

a a 
a ° 

>» 

© 

£ 

3 

a 

TO 

3 

o ^ 
© © 

„ 3 

>>  -3 

© 

3 

O a, 

b % 
© ^ 

o 

© 

.D 

ft 

© 

L|  ^ 

<u  0) 

^ Ja 
8 & 
-I 
3 12 

fc  3 
8 2 
2 ‘I 

75  £ 

w 3 

© 

8 3 

a 8 

^3  O 
m o 

8 

b 

8 

* * 

If  o „ 

I *§  '«  t o 
- i f « 3 

'p-  - s ^ -• 

£ £ •«  4 £ 

x ^ * 5!  x 

1 il  t * 1 


« a 


£ £ 


£ & 
.3  « 

1 ft 

.2  bD 
8 0 
bfl  •- 

* * 

b 43 

> © © 


03  3 ® 

a -g  ss  a 

^ a-3  3 

^33-9 


-3  ’3  w 3 
® a .;  J5 

*3  a 2 n 
§ 8 JS 


3 22 
8 3 

h'a 


® a 

3 | 

og  O 


CHAPTER  IV 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  I COR.  VII,  10,  11 

he  impartial  study  of  Christ’s  words  con- 


cerning divorce  as  recorded  in  our  second 
Gospel  clearly  shows  that  in  public  (Mk.  x,  2-9) , 
Jesus  set  Himself  up  against  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce,  and  that  in  private  (Mk.  x,  10-12)  He 
expressly  taught  His  disciples  to  look  upon  re- 
marriage after  divorce  as  entailing  the  guilt  of 
adultery.  The  same  unbiased  examination  of  the 
single  verse  in  our  third  Gospel  (Lk.  xvi,  18), 
which  refers  to  divorce,  proves  no  less  conclu- 
sively that  St.  Luke  bears  witness  to  the  same 
teaching  of  Christ  concerning  divorce  as  is  set 
forth  in  Mk.  x,  2-12.  This  is  the  plain  meaning 
of  Lk.  xvi,  18,  and  the  closer  its  wording  is 
studied  in  the  light  of  its  context  and  of  its  origin, 
the  clearer  it  appears  that,  according  to  our  third, 
as  according  to  our  second,  Evangelist,  Jesus 
condemned  every  remarriage  after  divorce  as  an 
adultery.  In  fact,  the  concordant  testimony  of 
these  two  Synoptic  Gospels  is  so  distinct  that  the 


95 


96  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Catholic  apologist  hardly  feels  the  need  of  ap- 
pealing to  any  other  text  of  the  Apostolic  Age 
to  confirm  it  and  to  substantiate  his  position  that, 
in  forbidding  remarriage  after  divorce,  the 
Church  of  God  simply  enforces  Christ’s  injunc- 
tion to  that  effect.  In  a matter  of  this  impor- 
tance, however,  it  manifestly  behooves  him  to 
bring  forth  every  available  evidence  in  favor  of 
his  contention;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  in 
I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  he  is  supplied  with  one  of  the 
greatest  value.  The  right  of  this  Epistle  to  be 
considered  as  the  genuine  work  of  St.  Paul,  the 
friend  and  master  of  “ Luke,  the  beloved  phy- 
sician ” (Col.  iv,  14),  is  practically  undisputed 
in  the  present  day.  The  early  date — between  53 
and  56  a.d. — to  which  it  is  commonly  ascribed, 
makes  its  composition  probably  anterior  to  that 
of  our  second  evangelical  narrative,  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Mark.1  When,  therefore,  in  I Cor.  vii,  10, 
11,  St.  Paul,  answering  the  inquiry  of  an  early 
Christian  community 2 which  he  had  founded, 

1 Cfr.  Jacquier,  Histoire  des  Livres  du  Nouveau  Testament, 
vol.  ii,  p.  434  (Paris,  1905);  Knabenbauer,  in  Evangelium  secun- 
dum Marcum,  p.  11  (Paris,  1894)  ; Brassac,  Manuel  Biblique,  vol. 
iii,  p.  81  sq.  (Paris,  1908). 

2 One  of  the  objects  of  our  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was 
to  answer  the  questions  which  the  faithful  of  Corinth  had  asked 
of  St.  Paul  in  a letter  of  theirs  which  is  no  longer  extant.  (Cfr. 
I Cor.  vii,  1;  viii,  1;  xii,  1;  xvi,  1,  12). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  9T 


rehearses  the  Lord’s  absolute  command  against 
divorce,  his  words  are  readily  seen  to  contain  a 
strong  confirmation  of  the  actual  meaning  of 
both  Lk.  xvi,  18,  and  Mk.  x,  2-12.  And  it  is 
the  purpose  of  the  present  chapter  to  set  forth 
the  exact  meaning  of  this  important  passage  of 
the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

The  following  parallel  columns  present  side  by 
side  the  original  Greek  of  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  and 
its  literal  English  rendering: 


10.  Tot?  Se  yeya/irjKocTLV  rrapay- 

yeAAo), 

ovk  cyw,  aAAa  6 Kiipio?, 
ywat/ca  a7 ro  avSpos  p.r]  ^cop- 
laOrjvai) 

11.  eav  8e  /cat  ^u)pLa6rjf 
ixevero)  ayaptos 

rj  T(3  avSpl  KaraWayrjTd), 

koI  avSpa  yvvaiKa  /xr] 

cVat. 


10.  But  to  the  married 

I command, 
not  I,  but  the  Lord, 
that  a wife  depart  not 
from  a husband, 

11.  — but  and  if  she  de- 

part, 

let  her  remain  unmar- 
ried 

or  let  her  be  recon- 
ciled to  the  hus- 
band.— 

and  that  a husband 
dismiss  not  a wife. 


I.  Three  Elements  Whoever  reads  attentively  this 
in  I Cor.  vii,  10, 11  sjlor|-  passage  w[\\  easily  notice 

that  it  is  made  up  of  three  several  elements  which 
all  demand  a careful  examination  from  the 


98  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


unbiased  interpreter.  The  first  is  a brief  intro- 
duction consisting  of  the  two  opening  lines: 

I Cor.  vii,  lOab. 

But  to  the  married  I command, 
not  I,  but  the  Lord; 

wherein  we  are  told  of  St.  Paul’s  intention  in 
quoting  the  Lord’s  command.  The  second  is 
made  up  of  two  lines  also,  viz.,  the  last  line  of  the 
first  verse,  and  the  last  one  of  the  second  verse, 
in  the  passage: 

I Cor.  vii. 

10c  that  a wife  depart  not  from  a husband, 
lid  and  that  a husband  dismiss  not  a wife. 


It  gives  the  command  of  Christ  concerning 
divorce.  The  third  is  a parenthesis  inserted 
between  the  two  lines  which  set  forth  the  Lord’s 
command : 


I Cor.  vii,  11. 

— but  and  if  she  depart, 
let  her  remain  unmarried 
or  let  her  be  reconciled  to  the  husband. — 

In  it  the  Apostle  declares  the  duty  of  a woman 
who  has  separated  herself  from  her  husband. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  99 


II.  The  First  Element  The  two  lines  wherewith  St. 

Examined.  Paul  prefaces  the  Lord’s 
command  claim  first  our  attention.  They  refer 
to  a well-defined  class  of  members  in  the  Corin- 
thian community,  rots  8k  yeyaWoW  “ but  to  the 
married,”  to  a group  perfectly  distinct  from 
those  spoken  of  in  the  immediately  preceding 
verses  (verses  8,  9),  where  there  is  question  of 
those  actually  free  from  the  marriage  bond,  “ the 
unmarried  and  the  widows.”  The  persons  spo- 
ken of  here  as  “ married,”  have  been  living  in  the 
married  state,  as  shown  by  the  use  of  the  Greek 
perfect  yeya/JLrjKocnv,  and  are  both,  the  husband  and 
the  wife,  Christians,  since  St.  Paul  considers 
them  as  subjected  to  his  authority:  napayyeXXtOj 
“ I command,”  and  since  he  intends  to  treat  of 
mixed  marriages,  that  is,  of  marriages  wherein 
either  the  husband  or  the  wife  is  alone  a Chris- 
tian, only  in  the  following  section  (verses  12-16) . 
As  Christian  partners,  “ the  married  ” are  bound 
by  a law  which  the  Apostle  thinks  it  his  duty  to 
proclaim,  but  of  which  he  expressly  says  he  is 
not  the  author:  “ But  to  the  married  I command, 
not  I,  but  the  Lord.”  The  law  which  binds  them 
together  in  holy  matrimony  he  distinctly  traces 
back  to  Christ,  and  represents  as  in  full  vigor  for 
those  who  recognize  Him  as  “ the  Lord.”  As  is 


100  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


well  said  by  a leading  Protestant  commentator: 
“ Paul  knew  from  the  living  voice  of  tradition 
what  commands  Christ  had  given  concerning 
divorce  . . . ; [and]  the  authority  of  Christ  lives 
on  in  His  commands.”  1 From  these  opening 
lines  then,  St.  Paul’s  frame  of  mind  in  writing 
I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  can  readily  be  seen;  he  wishes 
to  enforce  upon  the  married  Christians  of  Cor- 
inth the  peculiar  command  of  Christ  which  re- 
ferred to  their  state  in  life,  and  the  tenor  of  which 
he  knew  through  tradition. 

III.  The  Second  After  this  introduction  the 
Element  sets  forth  Apostle  proceeds  to  quote  the 
Christ  s Teaching.  Lor(ps  command.  He  sets  it 

forth  by  means  of  two  lines,  the  first  of  which 
regards  the  wife,  and  the  second  concerns  the 
husband : 

I Cor.  vii. 

10c  that  a wife  depart  not  from  a husband, 
lid  and  that  a husband  dismiss  not  a wife. 

These  two  lines  are  indeed  separated  from  each 
other  by  a parenthetical  remark  of  St.  Paul  as 

1 H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  Critical  and  Exegetical  Handbook  to  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  Eng.  TransL,  p.  156  (Funk  & Wag- 
nails,  New  York,  1884). — It  is  interesting  to  notice  how  Protestant 
scholars,  when  not  biased,  recognize  the  authoritative  value  of 
oral  Christian  tradition. 


CUBIST’S  TEACHING  CONCEBNING  DIVORCE  101 


stated  above;  yet,  they  actually  belong  together.1 
They  are  the  two  clauses  (note  the  conjunction 
Kal  “ and  ” which  unites  them)  of  the  one  sen- 
tence which  states  the  Lord’s  doctrine  regarding 
the  matter  in  hand,  and  on  that  account,  they 
should  be  interpreted  in  immediate  connection 
with  each  other.  Again,  especially  in  the  original 
Greek,  they  run  so  closely  parallel  in  con- 
struction : 

I Cor.  vii. 

•yvvcuKa  a tto  avSpos  fxrj  yoipiadrjvai 

Kal  ai /Spa  yvvaiKa  p.rj  acfnevau ; 

that  their  parallelism  was  manifestly  intended 
by  St.  Paul,  and  should  therefore  he  made  use 
of  by  the  modern  exegete  to  determine  their  pre- 
cise meaning.  And  there  is  no  doubt  that  who- 
ever studies  them  impartially  together  and  in  the 
light  of  each  other,  is  led  to  admit  that,  taken  in 
their  obvious  sense,  they  ascribe  to  Christ  an 
absolute  rejection  of  divorce.  They  both  evi- 
dently refer  to  the  bond  which  unites  a man  and 
a woman  in  the  married  state,  since  they  speak 
of  “a  husband  ” and  “ a wife.”  They  both  con- 
template the  possibility  of  an  actual  separation 
of  the  parties  concerned  that  would  go  against 

1 Cfr.  Comely,  S.J.,  in  S.  Pauli  priorem  Epistolam  ad  Corin- 
thios,  p.  177  (Paris,  1890). 


102  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


that  sacred  bond.  As  regards  the  exact  nature 
of  that  separation,  they  both  describe  it  in  words 
which  “ are  taken  from  the  [New  Testament] 
phraseology  of  divorce,”  1 so  that  the  natural 
meaning  of  the  terms  expressing  it  cannot  be 
doubted  for  a moment.  One  of  these  terms — the 
one  applied  here  to  a wife’s  separation  from  her 
husband,  is  xwP%CLV,  the  precise  verb  used  by  Our 
Lord  in  Mk.  x,  9,  and  Mt.  xix,  6,  to  forbid  the 
breaking  of  the  marriage  tie:  “ What  therefore 
God  has  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 
asunder  ” xwp^ v).  The  second  term — the  one 

applied  here  to  a husband’s  separation  from  his 
wife — is  d<£ierai,  which  even  in  classical  Greek 
means  in  such  connection:  “to  put  away,  di- 
vorce ” one’s  wife.2  Whence  it  clearly  aj)pears 
that  the  actual  separation  spoken  of  in  I Cor.  vii, 
10c,  lid,  is  one  that  would  be  considered  by  either 
husband  or  wife  as  terminating  a marriage  union, 
in  other  words  as  a divorce.3  Lastly,  it  can  be 

1 A.  P.  Stanley,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  p. 
103  (5th  edit.,  London,  1882).  See  also  article  Marriage,  in  Has- 
tings’ Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  iii,  p.  274. 

2 Cfr.  Herodotus,  History,  Book  V,  chap.  39. 

3 Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  157,  and  Protestant  scholars  generally, 
rightly  take  yy  xw/oar^rcu  as  a middle  aorist  meaning  “ let  not 
her  [the  wife]  separate  herself.”  This  meaning  is  required  by  the 
Parallelism  of  that  expression  with  yh  a<pUva  which  plainly 
denotes  in  I Cor.  vii,  lid,  the  husband’s  personal  action  in  pro- 
moting divorce. — Cfr.  Toussaint,  E pitres  de  St.  Paul,  vol.  i,  p.  312 
(Paris,  1910). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  103 


easily  realized  that  this  prohibition  of  divorce 
ascribed  by  St.  Paul  to  “ the  Lord  ” is  set  forth 
in  both  lines  in  an  absolute  manner.  In  form, 
both  lines  are  just  as  unconditional  as  Christ’s 
statement  in  Mk.  x,  9,  and  Mt.  xix,  6 : “ What 
God  has  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 
asunder  ” ; so  that  whoever  interprets  them  with- 
out dogmatic  preoccupation  will  naturally  take 
them  to  mean  that  Our  Lord  forbids  the  divorce 
of  the  parties  concerned,  simply  because  of  the 
tie  of  matrimony  which  hinds  them  as  “ hus- 
band ” and  “wife”:  as  they  are  living  in  the 
married  state  it  is  unlawful  for  them  to  sever  the 
marriage  tie. 

IV.  The  Third  Element  Such  is  the  straightforward 
Examined.  interpretation  of  the  two 

lines  in  which  St.  Paul  rehearses  Christ’s  com- 
mand concerning  “ the  married.”  According  to 
the  Apostle,  “ the  Lord  ” strictly  enjoins  that  the 
marriage  bond  existing  between  “ a husband  ” 
and  “ a wife  ” be  considered  by  them  as  indis- 
soluble. That  this  is  his  real  view  of  the  matter 
is  further  forced  on  us  by  an  unbiased  examina- 
tion of  the  parenthetical  remark  which  he  has 
inserted  between  the  two  lines  setting  forth  Our 
Lord’s  command,  and  which  forms  the  third  and 


104  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


last  element  of  the  passage  under  consideration. 
The  following  is  a literal  English  rendering  of 
this  parenthetical  remark: 

I Cor.  vii. 

but  and  if  she  depart, 

let  her  remain  unmarried 

or  let  her  be  reconciled  to  the  husband. 

The  first  of  these  lines  states  clearly  the  case 
contemplated  by  St.  Paul.  As  he  has  just  given 
Christ’s  command  concerning  a woman  who  was 
bound  by  the  marriage  tie  and  who  had  not  yet 
separated  herself  from  her  husband:  “that  a 
wife  depart  not  from  a husband  ” (verse  10c) , he 
now  supposes  («av  “ if  ”)  that  she  has  gone  so 
far  (kcu  “ and,”  “ even  ”)  as  to  contravene  (8k 
“ but  ”)  that  command,  by  separating  herself 
from  her  husband  (the  same  Greek  verb  xwp%w 
and  in  the  same  middle  aorist  form,  is  used  here 
as  in  verse  10c) . He  has  plainly  in  mind  a wife’s 
separation  forbidden  by  “ the  Lord,”  that  is,  one 
which  from  the  use  of  the  verb  x°>p%w  would,  as 
we  have  seen,  break  the  marriage  tie  if  this  tie 
could  be  broken.  Having  thus  given  the  exact 
state  of  the  case,  the  Apostle  sets  forth  in  the 
next  two  lines  the  precise  relation  in  which  a wife 
thus  separated  must  consider  herself  with  regard 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  105 


to  the  bond  of  matrimony.  He  authoritatively 
declares  that  the  wife’s  practical  resolve  of  termi- 
nating her  union  with  her  husband  does  not  give 
her  any  right  to  marry  another  man:  “ let  her 
remain  unmarried.”  And  the  reason  for  which 
all  remarriage  is  forbidden  her  is  not  left  to  our 
surmising.  St.  Paul  gives  it  distinctly  to  under- 
stand in  the  last  line  of  his  parenthesis.  In  say- 
ing, “ or  let  her  be  reconciled  to  the  husband,” 
the  Apostle  shows  clearly  that  according  to  him 
a wife,  thus  separated  from  her  husband,  is  still 
bound  to  him  by  the  marriage  tie;  he  is  still  “ the 
husband,”  the  only  one  with  whom  she  may,  after 
having  made  up  with  him,  lead  a married  life.  It 
is  divorce,  then,  that  in  this  parenthesis,  St.  Paul 
supposes  a wife  to  have  intended  in  separating 
from  her  husband,  and  that  he  considers  as  a 
contravention  of  the  Lord’s  command  concern- 
ing “ the  married.”  It  is  this  divorce  which  he 
treats  as  leaving  intact  the  binding  force  of  the 
marriage  tie.  After,  as  before  it,  the  divorced 
wife  must  not  marry  another  man.  After,  as 
before  it,  she  is  the  husband’s  wife.  Clearly, 
according  to  St.  Paul’s  mind,  Christ  has  pro- 
claimed the  marriage  bond  indissoluble. 

As  can  be  readily  noticed,  the  foregoing  inter- 
pretation of  the  three  component  elements  of 


106  CUBIST’S  TEACHING  CONCEBNING  DIVOBCE 


I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  is  thoroughly  objective.  It 
takes  the  words  of  St.  Paul  in  their  natural  sense, 
and  reads  nothing  else  into  them.  It  supplies  a 
meaning  perfectly  intelligible  to  the  faithful  of 
Corinth,  who,  as  well  as  their  great  Apostle, 
must  have  already  known  of  Christ’s  absolute 
rejection  of  divorce,  through  “ the  living  voice  of 
tradition.”  1 It  should  therefore  lead  every  un- 
biased mind  to  admit  that  in  this  Pauline  Epistle, 
in  this  very  early  document  of  Christianity,  there 
is  ascribed  to  “ the  Lord  ” a doctrine  which 
unconditionally  forbids  divorce  on  the  part  of 
either  of  two  Christians  who  have  lived  together 
in  the  married  state.  In  point  of  fact,  very 
recent  Protestant  scholars,  who  have  impartially 
examined  this  passage,  have  felt  the  force  of  its 
meaning  and  distinctly  acknowledged  it.  Thus 
Dr.  Willibald  Beyschlag,  of  Halle,  writes:2 
“ The  Apostle  opposes  the  desire  of  divorce, 
which  existed  in  the  Corinthian  Church  . . . 
with  the  Lord’s  unqualified  prohibition  of 

1 As  is  well  said  by  a learned  Protestant  commentator,  Principal 
Thomas  C.  Edwards  ( A Commentary  on  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  2d  edit.,  p.  169,  New  York,  1886) : “ Indeed,  Our 
Lord’s  doctrine  on  the  subject  [of  divorce]  was  in  that  age 
singular,  and  cannot  fail  to  have  been  known  among  Christians 
throughout  the  world.” 

lNew  Testament  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  220.  Eng.  Transl.,  Edin- 
burgh, 1899.  (2d  Engl,  edit.) 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  107 


divorce,  granting,  indeed,  the  possibility  of  a sep- 
aration, but  without  freedom  to  marry  again 
(I  Cor.  vii,  10,  11).”  In  a like  strain,  Prof. 
George  T.  Purves  says: 1 “ It  is  important  to 

note  that  he  (St.  Paul)  forbids,  on  the  ground 
of  Christ’s  command,  any  seeking  after  divorce.” 
The  late  Prof.  George  B.  Stevens,  of  Yale, 
remarks:2  “Paul  knows  that  Jesus  discoun- 
tenanced divorce  (I  Cor.  vii,  10,  11) . He  repeats 
the  same  principle,  and  adds  the  inference  that 
if  separation  does,  nevertheless,  take  place, 
remarriage  is  not  thereby  permitted.”  Dr.  Von 
Soden,  of  Berlin,  informs  us  3 of  “ Paul’s  de- 
cided rejection  of  every  idea  of  divorce,”  and 
Otto  Pfleiderer,  of  the  same  German  university, 
states: 4 “ Divorce  was,  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  not  permissible.”  Lastly,  and 
most  distinctly,  Prof.  Shailer  Matthews  of  Chi- 
cago University  writes:5  “Brought  face  to 
face  with  an  actual  separation  of  husband  and 


1 Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Aye,  p.  217  (New  York,  Chas. 
Scribner’s  Sons,  1902). 

2 The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  449  (New  York, 
Scribner’s,  1902). 

3 The  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,  p.  42.  Engl. 
Transl.  (N.  Y.,  Putnam,  190G). 

4 Primitive  Christianity,  vox.  i,  p.  162.  Engl.  Transl.  (N.  Y., 
Putnam,  1906). 

5 The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament  (Chicago,  the 
University  Press,  1905). 


108  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


wife,  Paul  speaks  in  the  name  of  Jesus:  ‘the 
wife  shall  not  depart  from  her  husband,  but  and 
if  she  depart,  let  her  remain  unmarried  or  else 
be  reconciled  to  her  husband;  and  let  the  hus- 
band leave  not  his  wife,’  (I  Cor.  vii,  10,  11). 
Here  is  the  one  clear  instance  in  which  the 
apostle  quotes  Jesus  as  an  authority  in  ethical 
matters,  and  it  is  worth  attention  that  it  is  at  the 
one  point  at  which  the  social  content  of  Chris- 
tianity cannot  change  except  for  the  worse.  If 
there  is  anything  in  all  the  specific  social  teaching 
of  St.  Paul  that  may  be  said  to  have  transcended 
the  historical  situation  in  which  it  was  uttered, 
it  was  this  concerning  the  family:  the  union  of 
a man  and  woman  in  marriage  is  a primal  fact  of 
humanity;  it  is  not  a matter  of  contract,  it  is 
an  actual  status.  Separation  may  be  permitted, 
but  not  remarriage  to  other  persons.  Divorce  is 
neither  instituted  nor  permitted  by  New  Testa- 
ment ethics.” 

V.  The  Preceding  A strong  confirmation  of  the 
Context  Examined.  sense  yielded  by  the  direct 

study  of  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  is  found  in  the  con- 
trast which  exists  between  that  passage  and  the 
immediately  preceding  lines: 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  109 


I Cor.  vii. 

8.  But  I say  to  the  unmarried  and  the  widows: 

It  is  good  if  they  remain  as  even  I. 

9.  But  if  they  do  not  contain  themselves,  let  them 

marry, 

for  it  is  better  to  marry  than  to  be  burnt. 

In  these  two  verses,  as  in  those  which  we  have 
thus  far  examined,  St.  Paul  has  indeed  in  view 
Christians  to  whom  he  proceeds  to  give  ethical 
directions.  But  he  speaks  only  of  Christians 
actually  free  from  the  bond  of  marriage:  “the 
unmarried  and  the  widows,”  intending  to  treat 
afterwards  (in  verses  10,  11)  of  “ the  married  ” 
or  Christians  already  living  in  the  married  state. 
According  to  him  (“I  say  ”) , those  who  are  thus 
free  from  the  marriage  tie  do  well  to  remain 
unmarried,  as  he  is  himself : 4 4 It  is  good  if  they 
remain  as  even  I.”  Realizing,  however,  that  this 
rule  of  conduct  may  not  be  appropriate  to  all 
those  whom  he  has  in  view,  he  adds  at  once  that 
such  a course  is  right  only  in  so  far  as  their  pres- 
ent state  does  not  betray  them  into  incontinency, 
for  if  it  does,  it  is  incumbent  on  them  to  contract 
marriage  and  thereby  put  an  end  to  what  is  for 
them  a source  of  sins  of  the  flesh: 


110  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


I Cor.  vii,  9. 

But  if  they  do  not  contain  themselves,  let  them 
marry, 

for  it  is  better  to  marry  than  to  be  burnt. 

In  striking  contrast  with  these  decisions  of  St. 
Paul  concerning  “ the  unmarried  and  the  wid- 
ows ” in  verses  8,  9,  stand  those  which  he  gives 
in  regard  to  “ the  married,”  in  the  next  verses, 
10,  11.  Differently  from  the  former,  these  Chris- 
tians are  living  in  the  married  state,  and  fall  on 
that  account  under  Christ’s  own  command 
against  divorce: 

I Cor.  vii. 

10.  But  to  the  married  I command, 
not  I,  but  the  Lord, 
that  a wife  depart  not  from  a husband, 

lid  and  that  a husband  dismiss  not  a wife. 

Thus,  whereas  those  truly  free  from  the  mar- 
riage tie  are  allowed  to  remain  unmarried,  those 
actually  bound  by  that  tie,  the  husband  and  the 
wife  equally,  are  forbidden  to  dissolve  their  mat- 
rimonial union.  And  whereas  “ the  unmarried 
and  the  widows  ” should  on  account  of  sins 
against  their  present  state  alter  it  and  contract 
marriage,  St.  Paul  admits  nothing  of  the  kind 
with  regard  to  “ the  married.”  There  occurs 
indeed  to  his  mind  the  case  of  “ a wife  ” severing, 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  111 


as  far  as  in  her  lies,  the  bond  which  unites  her 
to  a husband.  But  he  does  not  think  for  a 
moment  of  placing  her,  in  her  actual  separation, 
among  “ the  unmarried  and  the  widows.”  While 
they  may  remain  unmarried,  she  must  remain  so. 
While  he  obliges  them  to  enter  the  married  state 
should  their  single  condition  betray  them  into 
incontinency,  he  has  no  such  thing  to  tell  the  sep- 
arated wife:  the  only  alternative  he  gives  her 
is  to  go  back  to  the  one  with  whom  she  is  still 
married : 

I Cor.  vii,  11. 
but  and  if  she  depart, 
let  her  remain  unmarried, 
or  let  her  be  reconciled  to  the  husband. 

Whoever  then  interprets  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  in 
the  light  of  its  contrast  with  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding verses  (8,  9),  must  admit  that  in  quoting 
the  Lord’s  command  regarding  “ the  married  ” 
Christians,  and  in  applying  it  to  the  particular 
case  of  a wife’s  separation  from  a husband,  St. 
Paul  considers  the  bond  of  matrimony  as  indis- 
soluble because  Christ  has  willed,  and  still  wills, 
it  so. 

VI.  The  Following  That  such  is  the  Apostle’s 
Context  Examined.  actUal  frame  of  mind  is  pow- 
erfully confirmed  by  a brief  comparison  of  I Cor. 


112  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


vii,  10,  11,  with  the  immediately  following  verses. 
In  Cor.  vii,  12-16,  he  treats  of  persons  who  are 
indeed  living  in  the  married  state,  but  of  whom 
he  expressly  says  that  the  Lord’s  command 
regarding  “ the  married,”  which  he  has  enforced 
in  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  does  not  apply,  because  one 
of  the  parties  in  the  union  is  not  a Christian : 

I Cor.  vii. 

12.  But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord: 

If  any  brother  has  a wife  who  does  not 
believe 

and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a husband  who  does  not 

believe 

and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 
let  her  not  dismiss  the  husband.  . . . 

15.  But  if  the  one  who  does  not  believe  departs, 

let  him  depart. 

The  brother  or  the  sister  is  not  enslaved  in 
such  [cases], 

but  God  has  called  us  in  peace. 

16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  O wife, 

whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 

It  is  clear  that  in  these  verses  we  are  far  from 
the  strict  rules  given  in  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  that  is, 
in  verses  where  St.  Paul  quotes  and  applies  the 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  113 


command  of  “ the  Lord  ” against  divorce.  Here, 
differently  from  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  the  injunction 
to  the  effect  that  a husband  and  a wife  must  not 
sever  the  marriage  tie,  is  made  subordinate  to  the 
willingness  of  one  of  them — the  non-Christian — 
to  dwell  with  the  other: 

I Cor.  vii. 

12.  If  any  brother  has  a wife  who  does  not  believe 

and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a husband  who  does  not 

believe, 

and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 
let  her  not  dismiss  the  husband. 

Here,  also  differently  from  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11, 
the  actual  separation  (designated  by  the  verb 
xopL&iv  in  verse  15  exactly  as  in  verse  10)  is  cer- 
tainly represented  as  setting  free  the  deserted 
partner : 1 

I Cor.  vii,  15. 

But  if  the  one  who  does  not  believe  departs, 

let  him  depart; 

The  brother  or  the  sister  is  not  enslaved  in  such 
[cases]. 

The  reason  of  these  differences  between  the 
marriage  of  a Christian  with  a Christian  in  I Cor. 

1The  exact  import  of  I Cor.  vii,  12-16,  will  be  discussed  fully 
in  our  next  chapter  on  the  “ Pauline  Privilege.” 


114  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


vii,  10,  11,  and  that  of  a Christian  with  a non- 
Christian  in  I Cor.  vii,  12-16,  is  given  by  St.  Paul 
himself.  The  former  union  is  subjected  to  the 
command  of  the  Lord:  “ But  to  the  married,  I 
command,  not  I,  but  the  Lord  ” ; the  latter  is 
not:  “But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord.” 
Because  of  the  presence  of  the  Lord’s  command, 
the  former  union  is  indissoluble;  because  of  its 
absence,  the  latter  is  dissoluble. 

VII.  Other  Passages  The  foregoing  interpretation 
of  St.  Paul  0f  wor(js  0f  j Cor.  vii?  ip, 

11,  taken  in  themselves  and  in  the  light  of  their 
immediately  preceding  and  following  context, 
may  also  be  confirmed  by  means  of  other  pas- 
sages which  disclose  the  Apostle’s  mind  concern- 
ing Christian  marriage.  One  of  these  is  found 
in  verse  39  of  this  very  Chapter  vii  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians: 

I Cor.  vii,  39. 

A wife  is  bound  for  so  long  a time  as  a husband 
lives ; 

but  if  her  husband  dies  (literally:  falls  asleep), 
she  is  free  to  be  married  to  whom  she  wills : — only 
in  the  Lord. 

A passage  more  explicit  still  is  supplied  by  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  is,  by  one  of  the 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  115 


letters  of  St.  Paul  which  goes  back  to  the  same 
date  as  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  In 
Rom.  vii,  2,  3,  we  read: 

2.  A married  woman  is  bound  by  law  to  the  living 

husband ; 

but  if  the  husband  dies  she  is  released  from  the 
law  of  the  husband. 

3.  So  then,  while  the  husband  is  living,  she  shall 

be  called  an  adulteress 
if  she  belongs  to  another  man. 

But  if  the  husband  dies  she  is  free  from  law 
so  as  not  to  be  an  adulteress 
when  she  belongs  to  another  man. 

The  bearing  of  these  passages  on  the  question 
of  divorce  is  obvious.  In  both  these  texts,  as  in 
I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  St.  Paul  considers  the  tie  of 
Christian  marriage  which  binds  a wife  to  her  hus- 
band as  absolutely  indissoluble:  she  is  bound  by 
it  as  long  as  the  husband  lives,  and  she  is  free 
from  it,  so  as  to  be  allowed  to  remarry,  only  in 
the  event  of  the  husband’s  death.  According  to 
Rom.  vii,  3,  in  particular,  her  remarriage  before 
the  husband’s  death  makes  her  guilty  of  adultery, 
whereas  after  the  husband’s  death  her  remarriage 
is  in  no  way  tainted  with  that  sin.  The  Apostle’s 
mind  is  therefore  clear:  Christian  marriage  is 
indissoluble,  and  the  wife’s  remarriage  during  the 


116  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


lifetime  of  her  husband  is  an  adultery.  This  is, 
as  we  have  shown  in  our  foregoing  chapters,  the 
exact  meaning  of  Mk.  x,  2-12,  and  Lk.  xvi,  18, 
and  in  the  light  of  it,  our  interpretation  of  I Cor. 
vii,  10,  11,  is  manifestly  correct. 

The  third  and  last  passage  to  be  quoted  in  this 
connection  is  found  in  an  Ep>istle,  the  genuine- 
ness of  which,  though  sharply  questioned,  is  not 
disproved,  to  wit,  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
composed  about  60  a.d.  In  Eph.  v,  22-33,  St. 
Paul  writes  as  follows: 

22.  [Let]  the  wives  [be  subject]  to  their  own  husbands, 

as  to  the  Lord; 

23.  for  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,  as  Christ 

also  is  the  head  of  the  Church,  [being]  Himself 
the  savior  of  the  body. 

21.  But  just  as  the  Church  is  subject  to  Christ,  so  also 
should  the  wives  [be]  to  their  husbands  in  every- 
thing. 

25.  Husbands,  love  your  wives  just  as  Christ  loved  the 

Church  and  delivered  Himself  up  for  it, 

26.  that  He  might  sanctify  it  after  cleansing  it  by  the 

laver  of  water  with  [the]  word, 

27.  that  He  might  present  to  Himself  the  Church,  glo- 

rious, not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such 
thing;  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish. 

28.  Thus  also  ought  husbands  to  love  their  own  wives  as 

their  own  bodies.  He  who  loves  his  own  wife, 
loves  himself; 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  117 


29.  for  no  one  ever  hated  his  own  flesh,  but  feeds  and 

cherishes  it,  just  as  Christ  [does]  the  Church, 

30.  because  we  are  members  of  His  body. 

31.  On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  father  and 

mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife ; and  the  two 
shall  become  one  flesh. 

32.  This  mystery  is  great,  but  I speak  in  reference  to 

Christ  and  to  the  Church. 

33.  Nevertheless  let  every  one  of  you  love  his  own  wife 

even  as  himself,  and  let  the  wife  fear  her  husband. 

Whoever  reads  attentively  this  passage  will 
easily  see  that  in  it  the  Apostle  considers  as 
indissoluble  the  union  which  Christian  marriage 
establishes  between  husband  and  wife.  Accord- 
ing to  him,  man  and  woman  become  through  mar- 
riage “ one  flesh,”  that  is,  one  principle  of  nat- 
ural life.  They  are  a unit  of  which  the  husband 
is  the  head,  and  the  wife  the  body.  As  the  wife 
plays  the  part  of  the  body  she  must  of  course  be 
subject  to  the  husband  (the  head)  “ in  every- 
thing.” Again,  as  the  husband  plays  the  part 
of  the  head,  he  is  naturally  bound  to  a perfect 
love,  to  a love  which  excludes  every  hatred  that 
might  lead  to  a repudiation,  towards  his  body 
[the  wife].  In  this  way,  the  union  between  hus- 
band and  wife  which  is  of  its  very  nature  indis- 
soluble, since  it  is  that  of  a head  with  its  body, 
is  sure  to  be  preserved  by  the  absolute  obedience 


118  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


of  the  wife  [the  body]  on  the  one  hand,  and  by 
the  perfect  love  of  the  husband  [the  head]  on  the 
other.  It  thus  appears  that  in  Eph.  v,  22-33,  St. 
Paul  sets  forth  as  the  mutual  duties  of  husband 
and  wife  precisely  those  which  he  sees  to  flow 
directly  from  the  indissoluble  union  established 
between  them  by  the  marriage  tie,  and  the  ful- 
filment of  which  he  distinctly  realizes  to  be  nec- 
essary for  its  actual  preservation.  Hence,  it  can- 
not reasonably  be  doubted  that  in  this  passage 
the  Apostle  considers  as  indissoluble  the  union 
which  exists  between  Christians  living  in  the  mar- 
ried state.  If,  however,  a further  proof  of  this 
position  was  required,  it  could  be  easily  found 
in  the  fact  that  Eph.  v,  22-33,  places  marriage  in 
the  most  exalted  light  by  representing  it  as  a 
copy  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to  His  Church.  As 
is  well  said  by  an  eminent  Protestant  writer:1 
“ In  this  analogy  is  implied  the  indissoluble 
nature  of  the  marriage  bond;  for  the  union  be- 
tween Christ  and  His  bride,  the  Church,  can 
never  be  broken.  The  husband  and  the  wife  are 
one  flesh;  and  what  God  has  joined  together, 
man  must  not  put  asunder  (comp.  Mt.  xix,  3-9; 
I Cor.  vii,  10).” 

1 Philip  Schaff,  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  p.  444  (New 
York,  Charles  Scribner,  i859). 


Christ’s  Teaching  concerning  divorce  119 

VIII.  Con-  The  foregoing  pages  show  that  only 
elusion,  one  conclusion  is  possible  with  regard 
to  the  doctrine  which  St.  Paul  ascribes  to  Christ 
in  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11.  The  exegete  who  examines 
the  very  words  of  this  passage  without  dogmatic 
bias,  and  takes  them  in  their  obvious  and  full 
sense,  is  naturally  led  to  admit  that  the  Lord’s 
command  as  given  by  the  Apostle  to  “ the  mar- 
ried ” Christians,  rules  out  every  divorce,  and 
that  its  application  to  the  case  of  a Christian  wife 
permanently  separated  from  a Christian  hus- 
band treats  the  marriage  bond  as  indissoluble. 
This  same  meaning  of  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  is  forced 
upon  him  when  he  compares  its  contents  with 
those  of  the  immediately  preceding  and  follow- 
ing context,  as  also  with  those  of  other  Pauline 
passages  hearing  on  the  nature  of  the  marriage 
between  Christian  partners.  It  is  therefore  plain 
that  the  teaching  of  Christ  against  divorce  as 
transmitted  to  St.  Paul  by  “ the  living  voice  of 
tradition,”  and  as  recorded  by  him  in  one  of  the 
earliest  documents  of  Christianity,  is  the  very 
same  as  the  one  proclaimed  by  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church.  Nay  more,  it  is  plain  that  that 
Church  in  absolutely  forbidding  divorce,  not 
simply  in  virtue  of  her  own  authority  but  also  in 
virtue  of  Christ’s  injunction  to  that  effect,  is  act- 


120  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


ing  in  precisely  the  same  manner  as  did  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  when  he  wrote  nineteen 
hundred  years  ago: 

I Cor.  vii,  10,  11. 

But  to  the  married  I command, 
not  I,  but  the  Lord, 

that  a wife  depart  not  from  a husband,  . . . 
and  that  a husband  dismiss  not  a wife. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  “PAULINE  PRIVILEGE”  IN  I COR. 
VII,  12-16 

s we  saw  in  our  last  chapter,  I Cor.  vii,  10, 


11,  states  and  enforces  as  the  command  of 
“ the  Lord,”  the  same  absolute  injunction  against 
divorce  as  is  ascribed  to  Christ  in  Mk.  x,  2-12,  and 
Lk.  xvi,  18.  Its  plain  and  direct  meaning  is  to 
the  effect  that  neither  husband  nor  wife  is 
allowed  to  break  the  bond  of  holy  matrimony, 
and  therefore  rules  out  any  and  every  cause  that 
would  justify  remarriage  after  divorce.  In  it 
St.  Paul,  placing  husband  and  wife  exactly  on 
the  same  footing  with  regard  to  the  marriage  tie, 
supposes  that  a wife  has  actually  separated  her- 
self in  a permanent  manner  from  her  husband, 
and  declares  that  she  may  not  lead  a married  life 
unless  she  goes  back  to  the  one  who  is  still  “ the 
husband.”  Whence  it  is  clear  that,  according 
to  the  Apostle’s  mind,  the  marriage  bond  remains 
intact  despite  a permanent  separation;  and  sev- 
eral Protestant  scholars,  truly  unbiased  by  dog- 


121 


122  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


matic  preoccupation,  have  of  late  expressly 
recognized  that  in  this  passage  St.  Paul  pro- 
claims, in  virtue  of  the  Lord’s  command,  the 
indissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie  between  two 
Christians.  This  interpretation  of  I Cor.  vii,  10, 
11,  appears  all  the  more  unquestionable,  because 
it  is  the  only  one  which  tallies  with  the  context, 
and  with  other  passages  in  St.  Paul’s  Epistles. 
It  is  the  only  one  in  harmony  with  those  passages 
wherein  the  Apostle  distinctly  states  that  the 
marriage  tie  hinds  a wife  until  her  husband’s 
death,  condemns  her  remarriage  before  that  event 
as  an  adultery  (Cfr.  I Cor.  vii,  39;  Rom.  vii, 
2,  3),  and  describes  the  marriage  relation  be- 
tween a Christian  husband  and  a Christian  wife 
as  making  them  “ one  flesh,”  as  obliging  them  to 
strict  and  permanent  duties  for  its  preservation, 
and  as  binding  them  to  a union  which  is  a copy 
of  the  very  union  which  exists  between  Christ 
and  His  Church  (Eph.  v,  22-33).  It  is  also  the 
only  one  in  harmony  with  the  context  of  I Cor. 
vii,  10,  11,  for  this  context  proves  that  in  word- 
ing I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  St.  Paul  represented  as 
indissoluble  the  union  of  “ the  married  ” whom 
he  had  in  view,  simply  because  he  applied  to 
them  the  command  of  “ the  Lord.”  In  examin- 
ing this  context  in  our  preceding  paper,  we 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  123 


indeed  assumed,  rather  than  proved,  the  dissolu- 
bility of  a marriage  which,  according  to  the 
Apostle’s  mind,  did  not  fall  under  the  law  of 
Christ;  but  we  then  promised  soon  to  discuss 
this  point  in  detail,  and  it  is  to  redeem  our  prom- 
ise that  we  shall  make,  in  the  present  chapter,  a 
close  study  of  the  “ Pauline  Privilege  ” set  forth 
in  I Cor.  vii,  12-16. 

The  following  is  a direct  rendering  of  this 

% 

important  passage,  from  the  original  Greek: 


I Cor.  vii. 

12.  But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord: 

If  any  brother  has  a non-believing  wife 
and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a non-believing  husband 
and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 

let  her  not  dismiss  him. 

14.  For  the  non-believing  husband  is  hallowed  in 

the  wife, 

and  the  non-believing  wife  is  hallowed  in  the 
brother : 

else  were  your  children  unclean ; but  now  they 
are  holy. 

15.  But  if  the  non-believing  [consort]  departs, 
let  him  depart. 

The  brother  or  the  sister  is  not  enslaved  in  such 
[cases], 

but  God  has  called  us  in  peace. 


124  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  0 wife, 

whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 


I.  Component  Elements  In  this  passage,  as  in 
Pointed  Out.  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11,  we  can 

readily  notice  three  several  elements,  the  precise 
meaning  of  which  it  behooves  us  to  determine 
accurately.  The  first  consists  in  the  short  intro- 
ductory phrase:  “ But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the 
Lord,”  which  sets  forth  St.  Paul’s  exact  purpose 
in  writing  the  passage:  the  Apostle  wishes  to 
give  to  a class  of  the  Corinthian  faithful  direc- 
tions of  his  own  concerning  their  married  state. 
The  second  element  extends  to  the  end  of 
verse  14: 

I Cor.  vii. 


12b  If  any  brother  has  a non-believing  wife 
and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a non-believing  husband 
and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 

let  her  not  dismiss  him. 

14.  For  the  non-believing  husband  is  hallowed  in 

the  wife, 

and  the  non-believing  wife  is  hallowed  in  the 
brother : 

else  were  your  children  unclean ; but  now  they 
are  holy. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  125 


It  deals  with  the  case  of  mixed  marriages 
wherein  the  non-Christian  partner  is  willing  to 
remain  in  marriage  relation  with  the  Christian 
consort.  It  gives  and  justifies  the  Apostle’s 
decision  that,  in  such  a case,  the  Christian  should 
continue  the  marriage  intercourse.  In  the  third 
and  last  element  of  the  passage — the  last  two 
verses — St.  Paul  treats  of  a precisely  opposite 
kind  of  mixed  marriages,  viz.,  that  in  which  the 
non-Christian  partner  chooses  to  break  off  the 
marriage  relation  with  the  Christian  party.  As 
in  the  foregoing  element,  the  Apostle  gives  and 
justifies  the  line  of  conduct  which  the  Christian 
partner  should  follow: 

I Cor.  vii. 

15.  But  if  the  non-believing  [consort]  departs, 
let  him  depart. 

The  brother  or  the  sister  is  not  enslaved  in  such 
[cases], 

but  God  has  called  us  in  peace. 

16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  O wife, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 

II.  The  First  Ele-  Of  these  three  elements,  the 
ment  Examined.  first;  « But  to  the  rest  say  I, 

not  the  Lord,”  is  of  a special  importance  because 


126  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


of  its  manifest  bearing  on  the  whole  passage.  It 
points  out,  in  the  first  place,  the  particular  class 
of  the  Corinthian  Christians  to  whom  St.  Paul 
intends  to  give  the  directions  that  follow:  “ But 
to  the  rest ; ” and  next,  the  exact  authority  to 
which  he  refers  these  directions:  “ Say  I,  not  the 
Lord.”  The  expression,  rots  Sk  Aoittois/4  but  to  the 
rest,”  which  he  places  at  the  beginning  of  the  sen- 
tence, recalls  forcibly  by  its  position  and  its  con- 
struction the  words  which  he  has  used  at  the 
beginning  of  the  two  preceding  sections,  in  the 
first  of  which  (verses  8,  9) , he  speaks  of  the  non- 
married  Corinthian  Christians  by  means  of  the 
expression  rots  dyd/xois  Kat  rats  4 4 to  the  unmar- 

ried and  to  the  widows;  ” and  in  the  second  of 
which  (verses  9,  10),  he  addresses  the  married 
Corinthians,  both  of  whom  were  Christians,  by 
means  of  the  formula,  rots  8e  yeya/x^/coVtv,  “ but  to 
the  married  ” : 

I Cor.  vii. 

8a  But  I say  to  the  unmarried  and  to  the 
widows  . . . 

10a  But  to  the  married  I command,  not  I,  but 
the  Lord  . . . 

12a  But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord.  . . . 

The  striking  parallelism  which  exists  between 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  127 


the  opening  formula,  “ but  to  the  rest,”  and  the 
two  preceding  ones,  is  manifestly  intentional  on 
St.  Paul’s  part.  As  he  has  employed  the  first 
two  formulas  to  introduce  each  time  a distinct 
class  of  the  Corinthian  Christians  to  whom  he 
washed  to  give  appropriate  directions  with  regard 
to  the  married  state,  so  he  now  uses  the  third  par- 
allel formula  to  introduce  another  distinct  class 
of  the  Corinthian  faithful  to  whom  he  intends  to 
impart  special  directions  concerning  the  same 
state  in  life.  The  Christians  whom  he  has  now 
in  view  are  those  “ brothers  ” and  “ sisters  ” of 
whom  he  speaks  in  the  body  of  I Cor.  vii,  12-16 
as  united  in  marriage  to  a “ non-believing,”  that 
is,  non-Christian,  consort.1  Such  married  Chris- 
tians stand  before  his  mind  as  clearly  distinct 
from  both  the  unmarried  of  whom  he  has  treated 
in  verses  8,  9,  and  “ the  married  ” (both  of  whom 
were  Christians)  to  whom  he  has  just  given  direc- 
tions in  verses  10,  11,  for  they  are  living  in  what 


1 As  in  this  section  (I  Cor.  vii,  12-16),  St.  Paul  has  not  a single 
word  of  blame  for  the  faithful  united  in  marriage  to  a non-Chris- 
tian partner,  it  is  universally,  and  indeed  rightly,  admitted,  that 
he  is  dealing  here  only  with  marriages  contracted  by  two  parties 
when  as  yet  non-Christian,  and  transformed  into,  so  to  speak, 
mixed  marriages  by  the  subsequent  conversion  of  either  husband 
or  wife  to  Christianity.  Contrast  with  I Cor.  vii,  12-16,  the  strong 
rebuke  of  Christians  becoming  yoked  with  unbelievers,  which  is 
found  in  II  Cor.  vi,  14  sqq. 


128  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


may  conveniently  be  called  mixed  marriage / 
He  therefore  conceives  of  them  as  forming  a spe- 
cial class  by  themselves,  and  this  he  denotes  by 
the  use  of  the  adversative  particle,  Se}  “ but  to  the 
rest.”  He  no  less  clearly  realizes  that  such  a 
third  class  of  Christians  includes  all  the  remain- 
der of  the  faithful  needing  directions  with  regard 
to  the  married  state,  and,  in  consequence,  he 
rightly  designates  it  by  means  of  the  expression, 
rots  \olttol<s,  “ the  rest.” 

A further  study  of  the  three  opening  expres- 
sions in  I Cor.  vii,  8,  10,  12: 


8.  to  the  unmarried  and  to  the  widows  . . . 

10.  But  to  the  unmarried  . . . 

12.  But  to  the  rest  . . . , 

enables  us  to  realize  more  definitely  the  extent 
to  which,  according  to  St.  Paul’s  mind,  Christians 
united  to  a non-Christian  consort  form  a distinct 
class.  As  can  readily  be  seen,  the  Apostle  estab- 
lishes the  same  distinction  between  Christians 
united  to  a non-Christian  consort,  and  two  mar- 

1 For  the  sake  of  convenience  we  will  apply,  throughout  this  chap- 
ter, the  term  “ mixed  ” to  such  marriages  between  a non-Christian 
and  a Christian  partner,  although  the  term  is  now  restricted  in 
theology  to  designate  marriages  between  a Catholic  and  a baptized 
non-Catholic.  The  term  “ mixed  ” is  used  in  the  convenient  man- 
ner just  described,  by  R.  Comely,  S.J.,  Prior  Epistola  ad  Corin- 
thios,  p.  181  (Paris,  1890). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  129 


ried  Christians,  as  between  the  latter  and  “ the 
unmarried  and  the  widows.”  As  he  has  set  forth 
the  contrast  which  he  has  in  view  between  the 
married  (verse  10)  and  those  not  actually  living 
in  marriage  (verse  8),  by  means  of  the  expres- 
sion, tois  Se  yeya/xrjKom,  blit  to  the  DlCLVVied,”  SO 
immediately  afterwards  he  sets  forth  the  con- 
trast which  he  admits  between  two  married  Chris- 
tians on  the  one  hand,  and  Christians  married  to 
a non-Christian  partner,  on  the  other,  by  means 
of  an  exactly  parallel  expression,  tol s 8k  Aoittois, 
but  to  the  rest  ” It  thus  appears  that  on 
account  of  their  actual  condition  in  the  married 
state,  Christians  united  to  a non-Christian  con- 
sort are  considered  by  the  Apostle  as  forming 
a class  no  less  apart  from  that  of  “ the  married,” 
both  of  whom  were  Christians,  than  is  the  lat- 
ter from  the  one  which  comprises  “ the  unmar- 
ried and  the  widows.”  And  this  is  an  important 
conclusion,  inasmuch  as  it  naturally  leads  us  to 
admit  that  the  directions  which  he  intends  to  give 
to  “ the  rest  ” of  the  Corinthian  faithful,  are 
viewed  by  him  as  essentially  no  less  different 
from  those  which  he  has  just  given  to  “ the  mar- 
ried,” than  the  latter  are  from  the  directions 
already  imparted  to  Christians  not  actually  living 
in  the  married  state. 


130  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


That  in  taking  this  last  position  we  are  not 
ascribing  to  St.  Paul  a view  of  the  matter  that 
would  be  foreign  to  his  mind  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  to  the  opening  expression,  “ but  to  the 
rest,”  he  subjoins  at  once  the  significant  words, 
A.eyw  cyw,  ov^  6 Kvpios,  “ Say  I,  not  the  Lord.” 
Obviously  these  additional  words  are  intimately 
connected  with  the  formulas,  Aeyw  Se  (“  but  I 

say”),  and  7ra/3ayy€AAu>,  ovk  iy w,  aAAa  6 K vptos  ( “ I 

command,  not  I,  but  the  Lord”),  which  the 
Apostle  has  used  at  the  beginning  of  the  two  pre- 
ceding sections,  respectively: 

I Cor.  vii. 

8a  But  I say  to  the  unmarried  and  the 
widows  . . . 

10a  But  to  the  married  I command , not  /,  but 
the  Lord  . . . 

12a  But  to  the  rest  say  /,  not  the  Lord.  . . . 

It  is  plain,  for  instance,  that  the  words,  “ say  I, 
not  the  Lord,”  are,  like  the  preceding  formulas, 
intended  to  point  out  the  exact  authority  to  which 
the  Apostle  refers  the  directions  which  he  is  about 
to  impart  to  those  whom  he  has  in  view.  No  less 
plain  is  it,  that  in  writing,  “ say  I,  not  the  Lord,” 
he  has  deliberately  used  words  which  he  had 
already  employed  in  framing  the  preceding  for- 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  131 


mulas.  When  these  two  things  are  distinctly 
borne  in  mind,  the  precise  wording  of  the  phrase, 
“ say  I,  not  the  Lord,”  becomes  highly  significant. 
It  discloses  the  fact  that  St.  Paul  places  “ the 
rest,”  though  actually  living  in  the  marriage  state, 
on  practically  the  same  basis  as  “ the  unmarried 
and, the  widows  ” spoken  of  in  verses  8, 9.  It  is  on 
that  account  that  in  verse  12,  he  has  set  aside  the 
verb  vapayyeWa),  “ I command,”  of  verse  10,  to 
return  to  the  verb  Xcyw,  “ I say,”  of  verse  8.  It 
is  on  that  account,  too,  that  he  considers  as  not 
applying  to  the  marriage  tie  of  “ the  rest  ” the 
Lord’s  command  which  he  has  proclaimed  with 
regard  to  “ the  married,”  both  of  whom  were 
Christians.  Had  he  viewed  the  marriage  tie  as 
equally  binding  in  both  cases,  he  would  not  have 
treated  Christians  living  in  mixed  marriages  as 
a class  different  from  that  of  two  married  Chris- 
tians, or  at  least  he  would  not  have  explicitly 
denied  that  the  command  of  “ the  Lord  ” applied 
to  them,  and  would  not  have  written,  4 4 say  I,  not 
the  Lord.”  It  therefore  appears  that  the  Apos- 
tle considers  the  marriage  tie  which  exists  be- 
tween a Christian  and  a non-Christian  consort 
as  essentially  different  from  the  one  which  binds 
two  married  Christians.  He  uses  the  formula, 
say  I,  not  the  Lord,”  because  he  knows  that 


132  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Christ’s  authority  has  not  made  such  mixed  mar- 
riages indissoluble,  and  that  it  depends  on  his 
own  apostolic  authority — exactly  as  in  the  case 
of  “ the  unmarried  and  the  widows  ” — to  frame 
the  rules  to  be  complied  with  in  regard  to  the 
married  state  by  Christians  who  are  not  actually 
bound  by  an  indissoluble  union. 

III.  The  Second  Ele-  The  foregoing  interpretation 
ment  Examined.  Qf  clause,  “ But  to  the  rest 
say  I,  not  the  Lord,”  wherewith  St.  Paul  pre- 
faces his  directions  to  Christians  married  to  a 
non-Christian  partner,  is  powerfully  confirmed 
by  its  thorough  harmony  with  the  manner  in 
which  he  treats  in  the  very  next  element  of  I Cor. 
vii,  12-16,  the  binding  force  of  the  mixed  mar- 
riages he  has  actually  in  view.  This  second 
element  runs  as  follows: 

I Cor.  vii. 

12b  If  any  brother  has  a non-believing  wife 
and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a non-believing  husband  1 

1 We  have  adopted  this  rendering  of  verse  13a  because  it 
undoubtedly  sets  forth  St.  Paul’s  mind,  whichever  of  the  two 
Greek  readings:  Kal  yvv$)  et  rts  exet>  Ka^  r/ns  %x€Li  be  con- 

sidered as  primitive.  For  the  authorities  in  favor  of  either  read- 
ing, see  R.  Comely,  S.J.,  Prior  Epistola  ad  Corinthios,  p.  175 
(Paris,  1890). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  133 


and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 
let  her  not  dismiss  him. 

14.  For  the  non-believing  husband  is  hallowed  in 
the  wife, 

and  the  non-believing  wife  is  hallowed  in  the 
brother : 

else  were  your  children  unclean;  but  now  they 
are  holy. 

The  best  and,  indeed,  the  only  proper  way  to 
realize  the  full  meaning  of  these  lines  is  to  go 
back  in  thought  to  the  time  when  they  were  writ- 
ten, and  to  compare  their  tenor  with  the  Jewish 
regulations  of  that  day  concerning  marriages 
similar  to  those  of  which  the  Apostle  treats  here. 
In  St.  Paul’s  time  there  were,  of  course,  numer- 
ous cases  where  marriages  contracted  by  two 
Jews  had  been  transformed  into  mixed  unions, 
by  the  passage  of  one  of  the  consorts  to  a dif- 
ferent worship.  In  such  cases  the  Jewish  author- 
ities naturally  considered  that  it  was  within  their 
province  to  decide  what  was  the  obligation  incum- 
bent upon  the  sole  remaining  believer  with  regard 
to  the  marriage  relation,  and  they  actually 
bound  him  to  divorce  the  non-believing  consort.1 

1 Cfr.  A.  Edersheim  ( Sketches  of  Jewish  Life  in  the  Days  of 
Christ,  p.  158)  who  states  positively:  “One  of  the  cases  in  which 
divorce  was  obligatory  was,  if  either  party  had  become  heretical, 
or  ceased  to  profess  Judaism.”  See  also  Mielziner,  The  Jewish 
Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  pp.  122,  123  (New  York,  1901). 


134  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


According  to  them  this  obligation  was  equally 
binding  on  the  believing  husband  and  the  believ- 
ing wife,  for  the  simple  reason  that  neither  of 
them  could  continue  the  marriage  intercourse 
without  incurring  a defilement 1 that  would 
henceforth  make  their  children  “ unclean  ” from 
“ holy/’  as  they  were  reputed  before. 

Now,  whoever  studies  the  lines  above  quoted 
(I  Cor.  vii,  12b-14) , in  the  light  of  these  historical 
circumstances  of  St.  Paul’s  time,  will  find  it  easy 
to  understand  both  his  decision  and  the  reason  he 
gives  therefor.  The  Apostle  has  distinctly  before 
his  mind  marriages  contracted  by  two  non-Chris- 
tian parties,  and  transformed  into  mixed  unions 
by  the  subsequent  conversion  of  only  one  of  the 
consorts.  In  virtue  of  his  own  authority  he  pro- 
fesses to  formulate  a rule  relative  to  the  marriage 
tie  only  for  the  now  Christian  partner,  who  alone, 
as  he  knows  full  well,  falls  under  his  jurisdiction,2 
just  as  the  Jewish  authorities  legislated  in  regard 
to  mixed  marriages,  only  for  the  partner  who 
remained  under  their  control.  He  addresses  his 
rule  equally  to  both  the  believing  husband  and 

1 In  New  Testament  times,  even  the  passing  intercourse  of  a 
Jew  with  a Gentile  was  universally  regarded  as  defiling  (Cfr.  Acts 
x,  14,  15,  28;  xi,  3 sqq.;  etc.). 

2 This  is  evident  from  St.  Paul’s  statement  in  I Cor.  v,  12,  13: 
“ What  have  I to  do  with  judging  those  that  are  without.  . . . 
But  those  that  are  without,  God  judges.” 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  135 


the  believing  wife,  exactly  as  the  Jewish  authori- 
ties applied  their  decision  to  both  the  one  and  the 
other.  But  while  these  Jewish  authorities  for- 
bade the  continuance  of  the  marriage  intercourse 
after  one  of  the  Jewish  partners  had  embraced  a 
different  religion,  he  expressly  declares  that  this 
intercourse  must  be  kept  up  by  the  one  who  has 
been  converted  to  Christianity,  if  the  non-believ- 
ing consort  is  willing  to  continue  the  marriage 
relation.  He  is  fully  aware  that  he  thereby 
departs  from  the  Jewish  regulations  then  in 
vigor,  and  this  is  why,  after  formulating  his  own 
rule: 

I Cor.  vii. 

12b  If  any  brother  has  a non-believing  wife 
and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 

13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a non-believing  husband 
and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 

let  her  not  dismiss  him; 

he  adds  at  once  a reason  that  will  justify  his 
decision : 

I Cor.  vii. 

14.  For  the  non-believing  husband  is  hallowed  in 

the  wife, 

and  the  non-believing  wife  is  hallowed  in  the 
brother : 

else  were  your  children  unclean;  but  now  they 
are  holy. 


136  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


This  reason  may  be  briefly  explained  as  follows: 
In  a marriage  contracted  by  two  Jewish  parties 
the  change  of  religion  on  the  part  of  one  of  them 
naturally  meant  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  at  large 
the  doing  away  with  the  sacred  character  of  that 
partner,  and  therefore  the  diminishing  of  the 
holiness  of  the  union  and  of  its  future  progeny; 
the  children  born  after  the  marriage  had  thus 
become  mixed  were  considered  not  as  “ holy,”  but 
as  “ unclean.”  On  this  account  the  Jewish 
authorities  described  the  consort  who  had 
remained  faithful  to  Judaism  as  defiled  by  all 
subsequent  marriage  intercourse  with  the  partner 
who  had  passed  to  a different  religion,  and  they 
obliged  him  to  break  the  marriage  tie.  But  it 
was  the  very  reverse  which  took  place,  according 
to  St.  Paul,  when,  out  of  two  non-Christians 
united  in  marriage,  one  embraced  Christianity. 
The  change  of  religion  was  then  a lifting  up,  a 
hallowing  of  the  partner  who  had  become  a con- 
vert; it  was  an  accretion  of  holiness  for  the  union 
which,  when  persevered  in  by  the  Christian  con- 
sort, did  not  defile,  but  sanctified  the  children; 
these  would  have  been  regarded  as  “ unclean  ” 
had  they  been  born  before  the  marriage  had 
become  mixed;  “but  now  they  are  holy.”  In 
view  of  this  the  Apostle  represented  the  non- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  137 


believing  party  as  “ hallowed  ” by  marriage 
intercourse  with  the  Christian  consort,  and  bade 
the  latter  to  continue  the  marriage  relation,  if 
the  former  still  agreed  to  cohabit. 

It  thus  appears  that  while  St.  Paul  utilized  the 
existing  legislation  of  the  Jews  in  framing  his 
own  rule  relative  to  mixed  marriages,  he  materi- 
ally modified  its  enactment.  He  clearly  saw  that 
it  behooved  him  thus  to  modify  it,  since  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  into  the  world  so  pro- 
foundly changed  the  character  of  mixed  mar- 
riages that  it  ennobled  the  union,  instead  of  being 
detrimental  to  it,  after  one  of  the  consorts  had 
become  a Christian.  At  the  same  time  he  no  less 
clearly  saw  that,  although  made  holier  by  the 
reception  of  Christianity  by  one  of  the  partners, 
the  matrimonial  union  was  not  thereby  rendered 
indissoluble.  He  indeed  forbade  the  Christian 
consort  to  conform  to  the  existing  legislation  of 
the  Jews,  and  to  break  the  marriage  tie,  but  this 
he  did  not  forbid  absolutely,  for  his  prohibition 
is  expressly  conditioned  by  the  willingness  of 
the  non-Christian  partner  to  continue  to  cohabit : 

I Cor.  vii. 

12b  If  any  brother  has  a non-believing  wife 
and  she  consents  to  dwell  with  him, 
let  him  not  dismiss  her. 


138  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  * 


13.  And  if  any  wife  has  a non-believing  husband 
and  he  consents  to  dwell  with  her, 
let  her  not  dismiss  him. 

Had  he  regarded  such  marriage  bond  as  indis- 
soluble, he  would  naturally  have  represented  the 
obligation  of  maintaining  it,  as  he  had  done  in 
quoting  and  applying  the  command  of  “ the 
Lord  ” to  two  married  Christians,  in  the  imme- 
diately preceding  verses  (I  Cor.  vii,  10,  11). 
Instead  of  this,  he  distinctly  makes  that  obliga- 
tion subordinate  to  the  continuance  of  the  will 
of  one  of  the  partners,  and  indeed  of  the  one  who, 
as  a non-Christian,  evidently  looked  upon  the 
marriage  tie  as  dissoluble.  It  is  plain,  therefore, 
that  in  writing  I Cor.  vii,  12b- 14,  the  Apostle 
treated  the  marriage  he  had  in  view  as  a simple 
contract,  which  one  of  the  parties  might  either 
give  up,  or,  on  the  contrary,  ratify,  because  the 
other  party  had  materially  altered  his  condition 
in  relation  to  it,  and  the  binding  force  of  which 
persevered  only  when  the  latter  alternative  was 
actually  realized. 

IV.  The  Third  Ele-  That  such  was  St.  Paul’s  real 
ment  Examined.  frame  Gf  mind  in  forbidding 

the  Christian  consort  to  divorce  the  non-Christian 
partner  is  further  confirmed  by  a careful  study 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  139 


of  the  third  element  of  I Cor.  vii,  15,  16.  This 
third  element  may  be  rendered  as  follows: 

I Cor.  vii. 

15.  But  if  the  non-believing  [consort]  departs, 
let  him  depart. 

The  brother  or  sister  is  not  enslaved  in  such 
[cases], 

but  God  has  called  us  in  peace. 

16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  O wife, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 

In  these  verses,  the  Apostle  manifestly  deals  with 
the  case  where  the  non-believing  consort  wants 
to  give  up  the  contract.  His  purpose  is  to  set 
forth  the  Christian  partner’s  exact  obligation  in 
such  a contingency,  and  thereby  to  complete  his 
decision  “ to  the  rest,”  that  is,  to  Christians  living 
in  mixed  marriages.  In  the  opening  line  he 
concisely  states  the  case  which  he  has  now  in  view. 
He  supposes  ( d “ if  ”)  that  the  non-Christian 
partner,  upon  whom  he  still  makes  the  whole 
future  of  the  marriage  relation  to  depend,  is  this 
time  in  an  entirely  opposite  frame  of  mind  (hence 
the  use  of  the  adversative  particle  8e  “ but  ”) , to 
the  one  in  which  he  has  represented  him  in  the 
preceding  lines  (I  Cor.  vii,  12c-14).  Instead  of 


140  CHRIST'S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


supposing  that  the  non-believing  consort  accedes 
to  the  Christian’s  wish  to  continue  to  cohabit,  the 
Apostle  now  conceives  of  him  as  having  made  up 
his  mind  to  end  the  marriage  intercourse:  “ But 
if  the  non-believing  [consort]  departs  ” It  is  not 
a mere  withdrawal  that  would  leave  the  marriage 
bond  intact  that  he  has  before  his  mind  when  he 
supposes  that  the  non-Christian  party  withdraws, 
for  he  is  writing,  as  we  have  seen  in  interpreting 
the  immediately  preceding  lines  (I  Cor.  vii, 
12c-14) , in  distinct  view  of  the  Jewish  obligation 
of  divorcing  in  mixed  marriages;  and,  in  con- 
sequence, he  denotes  the  non-believing  consort’s 
practical  refusal  to  cohabit  by  means  of  the  verb, 
xwpi£eiv,  a legal  term  implying  the  breaking  of  the 
marriage  tie.1 

Having  thus  briefly  given  the  state  of  the  case, 
St.  Paul  subjoins  at  once  its  solution.  The  gist 
of  his  decision  is  contained  in  one  single  word, 
the  highly  significant  verb  “ let  him 

depart.”  This  verb  is,  of  course,  directed  to  the 
Christian  with  whose  line  of  action  regarding 
the  married  state  the  Apostle  is  concerned 
throughout  this  section.  It  is  the  very  verb  which 
has  just  been  used  in  the  statement  of  the  case, 

1 The  meaning  of  x<*plfrlv  has  been  examined  in  our  preceding 
chapter. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  141 


“ but  if  the  non-believing  departs  (xo)P%eTa 0 

to  denote  the  breaking  of  the  marriage  tie,  so 
that  it  has  manifestly  the  same  general  meaning 
in  St.  Paul’s  mind  when  he  writes,  xw/3t£€'°'0<0  “ let 
him  depart.”  Its  peculiar  form  here  is  a permis- 
sive imperative  which  conveys  the 

special  idea  that  the  non-Christian  partner  may 
carry  out  his  intention  of  doing  away  with  all 
marriage  obligations,  and  that  the  Christian  con- 
sort cannot  and  ought  not  hinder  him  from  doing 
so.1  Whence  it  appears  that  in  writing,,  “ let  him 
depart,”  the  Apostle  regards  the  union  between 
two  non-Christians  as  a breakable  contract,  and 
the  non-believing  partner  as  having  the  right 
actually  to  break  it  after  its  primitive  condition 
has  been  materially  changed  by  the  conversion  of 
the  other  party.  But  this  does  not  exhaust  the 
meaning  of  the  expression,  “ let  him  depart.” 
The  simple  use  of  that  verb  here  implies,  more- 
over, that  the  Apostle  considers  the  Christian  con- 
sort as  not  bound  to  remain  unmarried  after  the 
departure  of  the  non-believing  partner.  Had 
St.  Paul  thought  differently  of  the  case  he  would 
naturally  have  added  some  clause  to  make  his 

xCfr.  G.  B.  Winer,  A Grammar  of  the  Idiom  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 7th  edit.,  p.  310  sq.;  Engl.  Transl.  edited  by  J.  Henry 
Thayer  (Andover,  1877). 


142  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


mind  clear  in  that  regard,  as  he  had  actually  done 
in  the  preceding  section  (I  Cor.  vii,  10,  11), 
where  he  explicitly  bade  the  wife  to  remain 
unmarried  (/xei/eVco  aya/xos)  after  she  was  separated 
from  her  husband;  nay  more,  it  would  have 
behooved  him  to  insert  some  such  clause,  since 
at  the  beginning  of  the  present  section  he  had 
expressly  stated  that  the  command  of  “ the 
Lord  ” forbidding  remarriage  did  not  apply  to 
such  mixed  unions:  “ But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not 
the  Lord,”  and  since,  in  virtue  of  the  universally- 
received  notions  of  the  day  concerning  divorce, 
the  Christian’s  remarriage  would  naturally  be 
regarded  as  lawful  after  he  or  she  had  been  for- 
saken by  the  other  partner. 

In  pursuance  of  his  object  of  setting  forth  the 
Christians’  obligation  with  regard  to  the  married 
state  when  the  non-believing  partner  wants  to 
break  the  marriage  tie,  the  Apostle  completes  and 
justifies  in  the  remainder  of  the  section  his  brief 
decision,  “ let  him  depart.”  Literally  rendered, 
this  remainder  runs  as  follows: 

I Cor.  vii. 

15c  Not  enslaved  is  the  brother  or  the  sister  in  such 
[cases], 

but  in  peace  God  has  called  us. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  143 


16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  0 wife, 

whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 

In  writing  these  lines  St.  Paul  has  plainly  before 
his  mind  a Christian  consort  who  is  indeed  aware 
of  the  refusal  of  the  other  partner  to  cohabit,  but 
who  has  not  yet  been  deserted.1  He  conceives 
of  him  as  inclined  not  to  allow  the  departure  of 
the  non-believing  partner,  and  he  suggests  the 
reasons  for  which  the  Christian  consort  should 
come  to  the  resolve  prescribed  by  the  decision, 
“ let  him  depart.”  He  clearly  sees  that  the  con- 
tract which  he  has  represented  in  the  preceding 
case  (verses  12b-14)  as  binding  on  the  Christian 
partner,  because  ratified  by  the  non-believing 
party,  should  not  be  considered  as  binding,  h 
rot?  roiovTois,  “ in  such  cases  ” as  the  present,  where 
this  ratification  is  actually  refused.  No  less 
clearly  does  he  realize  that  should  the  Christian 
persevere  in  feeling  bound  to  the  non-believing 
partner  who  now  denies  marriage  rights,  “ the 
brother  ” or  “ the  sister  ” would  thereby  be 

1 In  verse  16,  for  instance,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Christian  con- 
sort as  entertaining  some  hope  of  the  conversipn  of  the  non-believ- 
ing partner,  should  he  prevail  upon  him  not  to  depart;  again,  the 
expression  “ in  such  cases  ” in  verse  15c,  refers  back  to  15a:  “ But 
if  the  non-believing  departs  ” wherein  the  present  tense 
excludes  the  actual  departure  of  the  non-Christian. 


144  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


reduced  to  the  condition  of  a slave  with  duties, 
without  corresponding  rights,  in  relation  to  a 
master.  He  therefore  emphatically  declares : 
“ Not  enslaved  is  the  brother  or  sister  in  such 
[cases],”  thereby  assuring  the  Christian  that  on 
the  score  of  the  past  marriage  contract  there  is 
no  reason  why  he  should  not  abide  by  the  apos- 
tolic decision,  44  let  him  depart.”  This  done,  St. 
Paul  proceeds  a step  farther  towards  the  object 
which  he  has  in  view.  Over  against  the  supposed, 
but  unreal  marriage  obligation  on  the  part  of  the 
believing  partner,  he  distinctly  sets  the  universal 
and  ever-binding  obligation  of  Christians  to  live 
in  peace:  “But  in  peace  God  has  called  us.” 
According  to  his  mind  this  is  an  unquestionable 
and  urgent  duty  which  should  cause  44  the 
brother  ” or  44  the  sister  ” to  set  aside  not  only 
all  vain  fear  with  regard  to  the  past:  44  Not 
enslaved  is  the  brother  or  the  sister  in  such 
[cases],”  but  also  all  illusory  hope  concerning 
the  future: 

I Cor.  vii. 

16.  For  how  knowest  thou,  O wife, 

whether  thou  shalt  save  the  husband? 
or  how  knowest  thou,  O husband, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  the  wife? 

Plainly  the  Christian  consort  could  not  reason- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  145 


ably  expect  anything  like  peace  from  the  non- 
believing party  who  had  made  up  his  mind  to 
sever  the  marriage  tie,  still  less  could  he  or  she 
reasonably  anticipate  to  win  him  over  to  Chris- 
tianity. In  consequence,  the  only  wise  line  of 
action  to  be  followed  is  the  one  prescribed  by  the 
Apostle,  “ let  him  depart.” 

V.  General  The  following  are  the  principal  con- 
Conclusions.  clusions  borne  out  by  our  study  of 

I Cor.  vii,  12-16.  First  of  all,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  when  the  passage  is  carefully  exam- 
ined in  the  light  of  the  circumstances  of  the  day, 
and  its  every  word  is  taken  in  a natural  sense, 
“ the  Pauline  Privilege  ” is  seen  to  allow  the 
remarriage  of  a Christian  only  if  the  non-believ- 
ing partner  does  not  wish  to  abide  by  the  primi- 
tive marriage  contract.  In  the  second  place,  in 
allowing  this  St.  Paul  is  fully  conscious  that  he 
does  not  go  against  the  Lord’s  command,  for  he 
distinctly  realizes  and  states  that  those  for  whom 
he  so  legislates  do  not  fall  under  that  command 
of  “ the  Lord.”  As  is  well  said  by  a leading  Prot- 
estant commentator:  “ The  Apostle  expressly 
asserts,  verse  12,  that  Our  Lord's  words  do  not 
apply  to  such  marriages  as  are  here  contem- 
plated. They  were  spoken  to  those  within  the 


146  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


covenant , and  as  such  apply  immediately  to  the 
wedlock  of  Christians  (verse  10),  but  not  to 
mixed  marriages ” 1 Again,  in  framing  his 
decision,  the  Apostle  utilizes  indeed  the  existing 
Jewish  legislation  with  regard  to  marriages  simi- 
lar to  those  which  he  has  in  view,  but  he  also 
modifies  it  to  the  extent  required  by  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  into  the  world.  Accord- 
ing to  him,  when  a non-believing  consort  becomes 
a Christian  he  has  no  self-profanation  to  fear 
from  a continuance  of  marriage  intercourse  with 
the  one  who  remains  unconverted,  and  in  conse- 
quence St.  Paul  bids  the  now  Christian  partner 
to  abide  by  the  marriage  contract,  if  the  still  non- 
believing party  is  willing  to  cohabit.  Lastly,  the 
apostolic  decision  contained  in  I Cor.  vii,  12-16, 
once  promulgated,  has  been  most  faithfully  pre- 
served by  the  Church  down  to  the  present  day; 
like  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  she  still  main- 
tains that  the  marriage  union  entered  upon  by 
two  Christians  is  indissoluble  because  subject  to 
the  command  of  “ the  Lord,”  and  at  the  same 
time  she  regards  the  union  contracted  by  two 
non-Christians  as  not  invested  with  the  same 
indissolubility:  should  one  of  the  non-believing 

1 Henry  Alford,  The  Greek  Testament,  vol.  ii,  p.  525.  6th 
edit.  Cambridge,  1871. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  147 


consorts  become  a Christian,  he  or  she  may 
remarry  if  the  other  gives  up  the  primitive 
contract.1 

1Cfr.  Concil.  Trident.,  Sessio  xxiv;  Leo  XIII,  Encycl.  Arcanum 
(Feb.,  1880);  and  Catholic  theologians  and  exegetes  generally. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  ST.  MT.  V,  81,  32 

“ Except  because  of  fornication  ” 

The  writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  we 
have  hitherto  examined  ascribe  to  Our  Lord 
one  and  the  same  unqualified  opposition  to 
divorce.  This  is  the  plain  and  unambiguous  tes- 
timony of  our  second  Synoptic  Gospel,  that  of 
St.  Mark.  In  Mk.  x,  2-12,  Jesus  not  only 
regards  the  Mosaic  toleration  of  divorce  as  a 
legal  concession  made  because  of  the  hardness  of 
the  Jewish  heart  and  in  spite  of  God’s  primitive 
ordinance,  but  He  rules  it  out  from  among  His 
disciples,  explicitly  declaring  to  them  that  the 
marriage  of  either  consort  after  divorce  is  an 
adultery.  Equally  clear  and  distinct  is  the  wit- 
ness of  our  latest  Synoptic  writing,  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Luke.  Viewed  in  itself  and  in  its  context 
Lk.  xvi,  18  attests  that  Our  Lord  proclaimed 
as  tainted  with  adultery  all  remarriage  after 
divorce,  and  that  in  doing  so  He  alone  proved 


149 


150  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Himself  faithful  to  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation.  Lastly,  in  writing  to  the 
members  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  St.  Paul  sets 
forth  in  no  uncertain  terms  Christ’s  actual  oppo- 
sition to  divorce.  According  to  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11, 
marriages  contracted  by  Christian  partners  are 
regulated  by  the  Lord’s  command  in  virtue  of 
which  they  are  indissoluble.  It  is  indeed  true  that 
immediately  afterwards  (I  Cor.  vii,  12-16)  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  cases  where  the  marriage  bond 
may  be  broken  and  remarriage  be  allowed  after 
divorce.  But  he  does  so  simply — as  is  evident 
from  his  words — because  the  marriages  which  he 
has  now  in  view  do  not  come  under  the  command 
of  “ the  Lord.”  Had  he  regarded  such  unions 
as  contracted  by  members  of  Christ,  he  would 
never  have  treated  them  otherwise  than  indis- 
soluble because  of  the  absolute  will  of  Christ  in 
this  regard  (Cfr.  I Cor.  vii,  10,  11). 

To  all  these  passages,  then,  the  Catholic  apol- 
ogist has  a right  to  appeal  as  proving  that  the 
present  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
is  the  very  same  as  the  one  ascribed  to  Jesus  in 
early  documents  of  Christianity.  Indeed,  his 
position  would  be  readily  admitted  by  all  non- 
Catholic  interpreters  of  Holy  Writ  as  well,  were 
it  not  for  the  fact  that  in  two  passages  of  our 


Christ’s  teaching  concerning  die  one  e i5l 


first  Gospel  (Mt.  v,  31,  32,  and  Mt.  xix,  3-12), 
the  significant  clause,  “ except  for  fornication,” 
is  actually  placed  on  the  lips  of  Christ  Himself. 
In  view  of  this  exceptive  clause  it  is  oftentimes 
claimed  that  Jesus  regarded  “ marriage  ,as  in 
itself  indissoluble,  except  by  death  or  by  that 
which  in  its  very  nature  is  the  rupture  of  mar- 
riage,” 1 viz.,  adultery;  and  that  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke  did  not  mention  adultery  as  an  excep- 
tion, because  it  was  understood  as  a matter  of 
course.  It  behooves  us,  therefore,  to  look  closely 
into  these  passages  of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel,  and 
to  determine  accurately  their  real  meaning.  To 
reach  this  end  more  effectively  we  shall  study 
them  separately,  and  devote  the  present  chapter 
to  a careful  examination  of  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  alone. 

The  following  parallel  columns  present  side 
by  side  the  Greek  text  and  the  literal  English 
rendering  of  this  important  passage: 


1 J.  Monro  Gibson,  The  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  p.  270  (New 
York,  1901).  Cfr.  H.  A.  Meyer,  Critical  and  Exegetical  Hand- 
book to  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  p.  132  (New  York,  Funk  & 
Wagnalls,  1884)  ; etc. 


Mt.  v. 


■o\vap  rrjv  ywaiKa  Whoever  shall  put  away 

his  wife, 

hrocrraaiov.  let  him  give  her  a bill  of 

divorce, 


31.  It  was  said  also: 


152  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


32.  ’Eyo>  8e  Ac'ya)  v/xlv  otl 
7ras  o airoXvfov  rtjv  ywaiKa  avrov 
7r apeKTos  Xoyov  iropvua^ 

7TOL&  avrrjV  fiOLX^vOrjvai, 

Kal  os  ecu'  aTroXeXvfxevrjV  ya proy, 
juot^arat. 


32.  But  I say  to  you 
that 

Every  one  putting  away 
his  wife, 

except  because  of  fornica- 
tion 

makes  her  commit  adul- 
tery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry 
one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 


I.  Purpose  of  Writer  It  can  be  readily  seen  that 
of  Mt.  v,  31, 32.  wbiie  our  first  Evangelist 
intends  to  set  forth  in  this  short  section  Our 
Lord’s  teaching  concerning  divorce,  he  distinctly 
gives  that  teaching  of  the  Master  only  in  the 
second  verse  of  the  passage:  “ But  I say  to  you,” 
etc.  Hence,  one  anxious  to  ascertain  the  doc- 
trine which  the  writer  of  the  present  section 
ascribes  to  Jesus  regarding  that  great  ethical 
question  might  be  tempted  to  neglect  Mt.  v,  31, 
as  foreign  to  his  object,  and  to  determine  Christ’s 
mind  concerning  divorce  by  means  simply  of  Mt. 
v,  32.  In  point  of  fact,  many  interpreters  wTho 
deal  with  this  passage  of  our  first  Synoptist 
treat  the  contents  of  Mt.  v,  32,  as  if  they  were 
practically  independent  of  those  of  the  imme- 
diately preceding  verse,  and  infer  from  Mt.  v,  32, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  153 


thus  separately  considered,  what  they  think 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  personal  teaching 
of  Our  Lord  concerning  divorce.  Such  a method 
of  interpretation  is  decidedly  incorrect.  It  is 
plain  to  the  attentive  reader  of  the  section  before 
us  that  the  two  verses  of  which  it  is  made  up 
should  not  be  explained  apart  from  each  other. 
Our  first  Evangelist  manifestly  bound  them 
together  under  the  form  of  an  antithesis,  and 
thereby  meant  that  their  respective  contents  be 
understood  as  in  opposition  to  each  other.  Mt. 
v,  31,  quotes  an  older  saying  concerning  the 
practice  of  divorce: 

It  was  said  also : 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce; 

Mt.  v,  32  sets  over  against  it  a more  recent  say- 
ing of  Christ  concerning  the  same  important 
topic: 

But  I say  to  you  that 

every  one  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery. 

The  opposition  thus  contemplated  by  the 
Evangelist  between  the  two  sayings  which  he 


154  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


quotes  in  Mt.  v,  31,  and  Mt.  v,  32,  respectively, 
can  be  readily  determined  in  a more  precise  man- 
ner. The  antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  is  not  an 
isolated  one.  In  this  very  same  Chapter  V of  St. 
Matthew’s  Gospel  there  are  five  other  antith- 
eses 1 with  which  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  can  be  easily  com- 
pared, inasmuch  as  they  are  all  built  on  the  same 
lines  as  Mt.  v,  31,  32.  In  each  and  all  of  them 
an  older  saying,  to  be  immediately  contrasted 
with  a more  recent  one  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples, 
is  invariably  introduced  by  the  same  formula: 
“ It  was  said  ” (kppWrj),  as  is  used  in  Mt.  v,  31a; 
and  in  each  and  all  of  them,  exactly  as  in  Mt. 
v,  32a,  the  more  recent  and  contrasted  saying  of 
Christ  is  invariably  introduced  by  the  words: 
“But  I say  to  you.”  Now,  the  exact  kind  of 
opposition  which  our  first  Evangelist  had  in  mind 
to  express  by  means  of  the  formulas:  “ It  was 
said,”  and  “ But  I say  to  you,”  in  these  five  other 
antitheses,  is  perfectly  ascertained.  In  each  and 
all  of  these  antitheses,  the  first  expression,  “ It 
was  said  ” serves  unquestionably  to  introduce, 
not  a strict  quotation  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  hut  a 
solemn  declaration  of  the  sense  in  which  the  text 
of  the  written  Law  of  Moses  had  been  under- 

1 These  antitheses  are  Mt.  v,  21,  22;  27,  28;  33-37  ; 38,  39; 
43-48. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  155 


stood  by  Jewish  tradition  1 and  was  expounded 
by  Jewish  teachers  in  the  synagogues.2  As 
regards  the  second  expression,  “ But  I say  to 
}rou,”  which  is  found  also  in  each  and  all  of 
these  five  antitheses,  it  is  no  less  unquestionably 
employed  each  time  to  introduce  a saying  of 
Jesus,  wherein  He,  the  Master  teaching  His  own 
disciples,  finds  fault  openly  with  the  sense  in 
which  the  text  of  the  written  Law  had  been  hith- 
erto interpreted  and  enforced  by  the  official 
teachers  of  the  Jews.  Thus  then,  in  these  five 
cases,  St.  Matthew  employed  these  two  introduc- 
tory formulas  with  the  intention  of  setting  forth, 
by  means  of  an  antithesis,  the  opposition  which 
existed  between  two  interpretations  of  the  writ- 
ten text  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  the  one  given  by  the 
Jewish  authorities  and  the  other  by  Our  Lord. 
And  in  view  of  this  it  is  only  natural  to  conclude 
that  our  first  Evangelist  employed  these  same 


*This  is  true  even  of  the  saying:  “Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery,”  found  in  the  antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  27,  28.  This  saying  is 
indeed  made  up  of  the  very  words  of  the  Mosaic  command  in 
Exodus  xx,  13,  and  Deut.  v,  17;  yet  it  sets  forth  the  Mosaic 
words  in  their  Jewish  traditional  sense,  whereby  the  actual  com- 
mission of  adultery  was  the  only  sin  forbidden  by  the  written  text 
of  the  Mosaic  Law. 

2 In  all  these  five  antitheses,  the  verb  ipptfq  is  preceded  by 
t)ko  : “ You  have  heard  that  it  was  said,”  a fact  which  proves 
that  each  time  there  is  question  of  an  authoritative  saying  of  the 
Jewish  expositors  in  the  synagogues,  and  distinctly  remembered  by 
their  hearers. 


156  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


two  formulas  with  the  same  intention  in  the 
antithesis  found  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32: 

Mt.  v. 

31.  It  was  said  also : 

whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 

This  conclusion  as  to  the  exact  intention  of  our 
first  Evangelist  in  writing  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  is  put 
altogether  beyond  question  by  the  study  of  his 
purpose  in  framing  the  series  of  antitheses  which 
he  has  embodied  in  one  and  the  same  chapter  of 
his  Gospel,  and  in  the  midst  of  which  he  has 
inserted  the  antithesis  found  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32.1 
St.  Matthew’s  purpose  in  that  regard  is  not  left 
in  any  way  to  our  surmising.  Just  before  setting 
forth  all  those  antitheses,  our  first  Evangelist 
records  the  following  declarations  of  Jesus: 

Mt.  v. 

17.  Do  not  think  that  I came  to  destroy  the  Law  or 
the  Prophets; 

I came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil. 

JThis  antithesis  is  preceded  by  two,  and  followed  by  three, 
other  antitheses. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  157 


18.  For  amen  I say  to  you: 

Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away, 

one  yod  or  one  tittle  shall  not  pass  from  the  Law, 

till  all  things  be  accomplished. 

19.  Whoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least 

commandments 
and  shall  so  teach  men, 

shall  be  called  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven; 

but  whoever  shall  do  and  teach, 

he  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

20.  For  I say  to  you  that 

Unless  your  righteousness  exceed  [that]  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees, 

you  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  Evangelist’s  line  of  thought  in  these  verses 
can  easily  be  made  out.  Jesus  was  charged  by 
the  official  expounders  of  the  Sacred  Text  with 
destroying  it  because  he  required  for  entering 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  a righteousness  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
that  is,  different  from  the  one  that  was  secured 
by  a strict  fulfilment  of  that  Sacred  Text  as 
interpreted  by  Jewish  oral  tradition.  This  oral 
tradition  was  held  by  all,  as  setting  forth  so  per- 
fectly the  contents  of  the  written  Text,  that  all 
that  was  required  from  a teacher  of  the  Law  was 


158  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


to  proclaim  the  oral  tradition  most  faithfully  and 
to  carry  it  out  scrupulously.1  To  affirm  there- 
fore— as  Jesus  was  actually  doing — that  the 
traditional  interpretation  of  the  Law,  when  faith- 
fully promulgated  and  acted  upon  by  the  Scribes 
and  the  Pharisees,  was  unable  to  secure  admis- 
sion into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  was  to  affirm 
this  also  of  the  Law  itself  and  consequently  to 
destroy  it.  It  is  plainly  in  view  of  this  accusa- 
tion against  his  Master  that  our  first  Evangelist 
has  written  Christ’s  declarations  in  Mt.  v,  17-20, 
and  has  prefixed  them  to  the  authentic  sayings 
which  immediately  follow  in  our  first  Gospel. 
Our  Lord’s  declarations  in  Mt.  v,  17-20,  amount 
to  this:  “ I came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  It 
is  really  to  fulfil,  that  I require  a higher  right- 
eousness, the  higher  including  naturally  the 
lower  4 righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees.’ It  is  to  fulfil,  that  in  my  interpretation 
of  the  written  text  of  the  Law  I include  small 
particles  of  it — even  a yod  or  a tittle  of  it — which 
have  been  lost  sight  of  by  those  who  framed  the 

1 With  regard  to  the  teacher’s  duty  concerning  the  oral  law 
handed  down  by  tradition,  and  considered  by  the  Jews  as  render- 
ing impossible  every  unwitting  transgression  of  the  Law  of  Moses, 
A.  Edersheim  pertinently  remarks:  “Nothing  here  could  be 

altered,  nor  was  any  freedom  left  to  the  individual  teacher,  save 
that  of  explanation  and  illustration.”  ( Sketches  of  Jewish  Social 
Life  in  the  Days  of  Christ , p.  288.  Boston,  1875). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  159 


traditional  interpretation  propounded  by  the 
official  teachers  in  the  synagogues.  It  is  to  fulfil, 
that  I declare  that  only  the  one  who  faithfully 
promulgates  and  acts  upon  this  inclusive  inter- 
pretation of  the  text  of  the  Law  can  be  called 
great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  even  can  hope 
for  admittance  into  it.”  Such,  is  the  obvious 
meaning  of  Our  Lord’s  declarations  in  Mt.  v, 
17-20;  and  in  order  that  he  may  enable  his 
Jewish  readers  to  realize  for  themselves  the  man- 
ner in  which  Jesus’  teaching  fulfilled  the  Law 
down  to  its  44  yod  and  tittle,”  differently  from 
the  teaching  of  the  official  expounders  of  the 
Law,  our  first  Evangelist  gives  at  once  the  series 
of  antitheses  among  which  is  found  Mt.  v,  31,  32. 
It  is  therefore  from  this  standpoint  that  it 
behooves  us  to  interpret  the  two  members  of  the 
antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  if  we  wish  accurately 
to  realize  the  doctrine  which  St.  Matthew 
ascribes  therein  to  the  Jewish  authorities  and  to 
Our  Lord  respectively.  These  two  members  set 
the  two  doctrines  contrasted,  in  such  an  oppo- 
sition that  the  first — that  of  the  official  expound- 
ers of  the  Law — must  be  taken  as  an  imperfect 
interpretation  of  the  written  text  of  the  Law 
concerning  divorce,  and  that  the  second — that  of 
Jesus  to  His  disciples — must  be  taken,  on  the 


160  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


contrary,  as  the  one  which  fulfils  that  same 
sacred  text  down  to  its  very  “ yod  or  tittle.” 

II.  Mt.  v,  31, 32,  It  must  indeed  be  granted 
Points  Back  to  Deut.  that,  in  reference  to  some  of 
xxiv,  1 4.  the  antitheses  grouped  in 

the  fifth  chapter  of  our  first  Gospel,  it  is  difficult 
to  point  out  the  exact  passage  of  the  written  text, 
of  which  the  Evangelist  regards  the  traditional 
Jewish  saying  as  a defective,  and  Christ’s  oppo- 
site saying  as  a perfect,  interpretation.  But,  it 
can  readily  be  seen  that  the  case  is  quite  different 
with  the  antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32: 

Mt.  v. 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 

Both  members  of  this  antithesis  plainly  bear  on 
the  question  of  divorce,  and  the  classical  passage 
of  the  Mosaic  Law,  in  which  centered  the  discus- 
sions of  Shammai  and  Hillel  (first  cent,  b.c.) 
and  of  their  respective  schools  (first  cent,  of  our 
era)  concerning  the  practice  of  divorce,  is  un- 


CUBIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  161 


doubtedly  the  one  which  is  found  in  Deuter- 
onomy xxiv,  1-4,  and  the  full  text  of  which  reads 
literally  as  follows: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife,  and  marrieth  her, 

and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in 
his  eyes,  because  he  hath  found  in  her  some 
indecency,  that  he  writeth  her  a bill  of 
divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand, 
and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 

and  becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth  her 

a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her 
hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house,  or  if 
the  latter  man  who  took  her  as  his  wife  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  is  not 

allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after 
that  she  is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination 
before  Yahweh,  and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to 
sin  the  land  which  Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth 
thee  [as]  an  inheritance. 

On  the  basis  of  this  text  the  Shammaites  and  the 
Hillelites  were  still  at  variance  in  Our  Lord’s 
time,  as  to  the  cause  that  would  justify  a man 
in  putting  away  his  wife.  The  former  main- 
tained that  the  husband  might  do  so  only  because 
of  unfaithfulness;  the  latter,  on  the  contrary, 
affirmed  that  he  might  act  thus  for  practically 


162  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


any  cause.  Hence,  it  was  only  natural  that  when 
Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  was  read  in  the  synagogue,  the 
official  expounders  of  the  Law  should  promul- 
gate what  had  been  settled  by  tradition  as  to  the 
full  meaning  of  the  text,  viz.,  what  we  find 
recorded  by  our  Evangelist  in  Mt.  v,  31: 

Whoever  shall  put  away, 

let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

And  it  is  manifestly  because  Our  Lord  is  con- 
ceived by  St.  Matthew  as  finding  fault  with  such 
traditional  interpretation  of  that  same  text  of 
Deuteronomy  that  He  is  represented  as  declar- 
ing in  Mt.  v,  32 : 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery; 

for  in  these  lines  the  mention  of  the  cause  of  for- 
nication and  of  the  commission  of  adultery  points 
distinctly  back  to  particulars  found  in  Deut. 
xxiv,  1-4,1  and  apparently  ignored  by  Jewish 
tradition. 

1 The  verb  in  the  expression  “ after  she  is  defiled  ” which 

is  used  of  the  marriage  of  a divorced  woman  in  Deut.  xxiv,  4, 
is  the  one  applied  to  adultery  in  Levit.  xviii,  20;  Numbers  v,  13, 
14,  20. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  163 


We  therefore  see  what  is  the  precise  opposition 
intended  by  our  first  Evangelist  in  writing  the 
antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32.  The  opposition  which 
he  contemplates  is  one  which  exists  between  two 
rival  interpretations  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  and  the 
latter  of  which  alone  fulfils  in  his  eyes  the  word- 
ing of  that  Mosaic  passage. 

III.  Mt.  v,  31,  Having  thus  made  out  the 

in  the  Light  of  Deut.  exact  standpoint  from 

1_4'  which  St.  Matthew  quotes 

the  two  sayings  which  form  the  antithesis  in  Mt. 
v,  31,  32,  we  now  proceed  to  determine  their 
respective  meaning  in  the  light  of  Deut.  xxiv, 
1-4,  that  is,  of  the  written  text  of  the  Law  to 
which  they  both  point  back.  We  naturally  begin 
with  the  Jewish  saying  which  is  set  forth  first  by 
our  Evangelist: 


Mt.  v,  31b  c. 

°Os  av  a,7 roXvarj  rrjv  ywaLKa  Whoever  shall  put  away 
avrov , his  wife, 

Soto)  avrrj  anovTacnov.  let  him  give  her  a bill  of 

divorce. 

This  is  the  traditional  pronouncement  concerning 
the  practice  of  divorce,  the  natural  meaning  of 
which  the  official  expounders  of  the  Mosaic  Law 


164  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


considered  as  stating  adequately  the  require- 
ments of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife,  and  marrieth  her, 

and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in 
his  eyes,  because  he  hath  found  in  her  some 
indecency,  that  he  writeth  her  a bill  of  di- 
vorce, and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand,  and 
putteth  her  out  of  his  house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 

and  becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth  her 

a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her 
hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house,  or  if 
the  latter  man  who  took  her  as  his  wife  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  is  not 

allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after 
that  she  is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination 
before  Yahweh,  and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to 
sin  the  land  which  Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth 
thee  [as]  an  inheritance. 

Immediately  after  the  public  reading  and  trans- 
lating of  this  section  of  the  Law  in  the  syna- 
gogues,1 the  Jewish  teachers  proclaimed  the  say- 


1 As  the  Hebrew  language  had  become  unknown  to  the  people 
at  large,  having  given  place  to  the  Aramaic,  an  interpreter  stood 
by  the  side  of  the  reader  in  the  synagogue  and  translated  verse  by 
verse  into  the  vernacular. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  1G5 


ing  recorded  in  Mt.  v,  31,  thereby  making  it 
known  officially  to  their  hearers  that  all  that  was 
required  by  this  Deuteronomic  passage  from  a 
man  who  was  determined  to  put  away  his  wife, 
was  that  he  should  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 
And,  indeed,  it  must  have  been  in  their  eyes 
an  easy  matter  to  show  how  the  saying  handed 
down  by  tradition  was  the  strict  equivalent  of 
the  Mosaic  enactment  concerning  divorce  in 
Deut.  xxiv,  1-4.  According  to  them,  Moses  in 
this  passage  does  not  forbid  divorce,  but  regu- 
lates its  practice.  After,  as  before,  this  enact- 
ment a man  may  lawfully  put  away  his  wife,  since 
in  this  very  decree  Israel’s  lawgiver  speaks  of  the 
dismissed  wife  as  4 4 going  and  becoming  another 
man’s  [wife]  ” (Deut.  xxiv,  2) ; as  susceptible 
of  being  put  away  by  this  latter  man  (verse  3), 
in  which  event  she  may  still  remarry,  except  how- 
ever, “ her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  ” 
(verse  4).  But  after,  differently  from  before, 
the  decree  contained  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  who- 
ever is  determined  to  part  for  ever  with  his  wife 
cannot  do  so  lawfully  without  supplying  her  with 
a bill  of  divorce,  since  this  supplying  is  distinctly 
mentioned  by  Israel’s  lawgiver  in  connection  with 
the  two  men  whose  action  he  describes  in  the 
framing  of  his  decree: 


166  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


( Case  of  the  second  man.) 

2.  and  she  departeth 

out  of  his  house 
and  goeth 

and  becometh  another 
man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man 

hateth  her 


and  writeth  her  a bill  of 
divorce 

and  deliver eth  [it]  into 
her  hand , 

and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house, 

or  if  the  latter  man  die, 
etc. 

In  the  case  of  the  two  men  spoken  of  in  these 
lines,  the  bill  of  divorce  is  mentioned  as  a pre- 
requisite for  the  woman’s  dismissal,  and  in  the 
case  of  both  the  first  husband  and  the  man  who 
married  her  after  she  had  been  put  away,  it  is 
only  upon  the  giving  of  that  bill  that  she  is 
assumed  to  be  free  to  look  for  another  man. 
Hence,  the  Jewish  expounders  of  the  Law  could 
readily  claim  that  this  Deuteronomic  passage 
simply  required  for  a man’s  lawful  dismissal  of 
his  wife,  that  he  should  give  her  a bill  of  divorce, 


( Case  of  the  first  man.) 

1.  When  a man  taketh 
a wife 

and  marrieth  her,  and  it 
cometh  to  pass 
if  she  find  no  favor  in  his 
eyes, 

because  he  hath  found  in 
her  some  indecency, 
that  he  writeth  her  a bill  of 
divorce 

and  deliver  eth  [it]  into 
her  hand , 

and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  167 


as  is  exactly  set  forth  in  the  traditional  saying: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

The  wording,  “ whoever  ” (os  av),  in  that  saying, 
represented  correctly,  according  to  them,  the 
mind  of  the  great  lawgiver  of  Israel,  since  in 
framing  his  decree  he  had  embraced  all  the  pos- 
sible cases  of  a lawful  dismissal,  viz.,  that  of  a 
man  who  puts  away  a woman  who  had  never 
been  married  before  to  anybody  else,  and  that 
of  a man  who  dismisses  one  who  had  been  put 
away  from  a husband.  Again,  the  expression, 
“let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce”  (86™  airy) 
used  in  the  saying  handed  down  by  tradition,  in- 
cluded manifestly  both  the  writing  for  her,  and 
the  delivering  into  her  hand  of  that  document, 
which  are  specified  for  the  two  dismissals  spoken 
of  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4.  Finally,  they  could  easily 
maintain  that  the  traditional  saying  is  not  a 
defective  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  decree; 
although  differently  from  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  it 
contains  no  reference  to  the  cause  of  fornication 
'im  n*nj7,  literally:  the  nakedness  of  a thing. 
For  this  purpose  they  had  only  to  appeal  to  the 
differences  noticeable  in  the  respective  wording 


168  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


of  the  two  cases  described  by  the  framer  of  the 
Deuteronomic  decree.  The  second  man  is  indeed 
represented,  like  the  former  husband,  as  deter- 
mined to  put  away  the  woman  with  whom  he  is 
living,  and  his  action  is  assumed  to  he  no  less 
lawful  than  that  of  the  former.  And  yet,  while 
the  first  husband  is  said  to  be  in  that  frame  of 
mind,  “ because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  inde- 
cency,” of  the  latter  man  it  is  simply  written, 
“ and  the  latter  man  liateth  her.”  The  omission 
of  the  clause,  “ because  he  hath  found  in  her  some 
indecency,”  in  this  second  case  was  of  course  a 
deliberate  one  on  the  part  of  Moses,  and  hence 
should  be  treated  as  implying  that  he  regarded 
the  giving  of  a bill  of  divorce,  irrespectively  of 
the  only  cause  which  he  had  p>recedently  men- 
tioned, as  sufficient  to  make  a wife’s  dismissal 
perfectly  lawful.  This  inference  would  appear 
to  the  Jewish  jurists  all  the  surer,  because  in 
describing  the  conduct  of  the  second  man  the 
Mosaic  legislator  had  said: 

Deut.  xxiv,  3. 

and  the  latter  man  hateth  her 
and  writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce 
and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand, 
and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house, 
or  if  the  latter  man  die , etc. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  169 


The  addition  of  the  clause,  “ or  if  the  latter  man 
die,”  in  this  second  case,  was  easily  construed  as 
showing  that  the  simple  supplying  of  a bill  of 
divorce  by  a man — independently  of  any  cause, 
since  the  mention  of  a cause  is  now  dropped— 
placed  the  latter  man  before  the  mind  of  Moses 
in  exactly  the  same  condition  as  that  of  a dead 
husband.  And  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  because  of 
this  additional  clause  in  Deut.  xxiv,  3,  that  the 
Jews  had  it  that  “ a woman  is  loosed  from  the 
law  of  a husband  by  only  one  of  two  things:  a 
bill  of  divorce,  or  the  husband’s  death.”  1 In 
understanding,  then,  the  words  of  the  traditional 
saying: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 

let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce; 

as  allowing  a man’s  dismissal  of  his  wife  under 
the  sole  condition  that  he  would  give  her  a bill 
of  divorce — for  whatever  cause  he  gave  it — the 
official  teachers  of  the  Law  felt  quite  sure  that 
they  were  setting  forth  an  adequate  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  enactment  in  Deut.  xxiv, 
1-4.  It  is  this  conviction  on  their  part  which 
accounts  for  the  manner  in  which  such  authorized 

1The  Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  treatise  Qiddushin,  chap,  i,  pp. 
193,  202  (French  Transl.,  M.  Schwab,  tome  ix.  Paris,  1887). 


170  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


expositors  of  the  Mosaic  Law  as  Philo  (about 
20  b.c.-a.d.  50)  and  Josephus  (about  37-100 
a.d.  ) give  the  requirements  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4. 
The  latter,  for  instance,  says  expressly:  “ He 
who  desires  to  be  divorced  from  his  wife  for  any 
cause  whatever  (and  many  such  causes  happen 
among  men)  let  him  in  writing  give  assurance 
that  he  will  never  use  her  as  his  wife  any  more; 
for  by  this  means  she  may  be  at  liberty  to  live 
with  another  man,  although  before  this  bill  be 
given,  she  is  not  permitted  to  do  so : but  if  she  be 
misused  by  him  also,  or  if,  when  he  is  dead,  her 
first  husband  would  marry  her  again,  it  shall  not 
be  lawful  for  her  to  return  to  him.”  1 It  is  this 
conviction,  too,  which  caused  official  expounders 
of  the  Law  to  look  upon  divorce  in  the  light  of 
a privilege  granted  only  to  the  Jews,  not  to  the 
Gentiles ; 2 to  consider  the  giving  of  a bill  of 
divorce  as  the  simple  and  safe  means  that  sev- 
ered the  marriage  tie  no  less  effectively  than 
death  itself,  and  to  act  accordingly.3  It  was  this 

1 Josephus,  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  Book  iv,  chap,  viii,  § 23. 

2 Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  loc.  cit.,  p.  197. 

3 Josephus,  Life  (75,  76)  describes  his  own  freedom  in  dealing 
with  the  marriage  tie. — A.  Edersheim  (Life  and  Times  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  vol.  ii,  p.  332,  footnote  5)  pertinently  remarks:  “Two 
disgusting  instances  of  Rabbis  making  proclamation  of  their  wish 
to  be  married  for  a day  (in  a strange  place,  and  then  divorced), 
are  mentioned  in  Yoma  18b.” 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  171 


conviction  on  their  part,  finally,  which  naturally 
accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  official  teachers  of 
Israel  accused  Our  Lord  of  destroying  the  Law 
in  its  enactment  concerning  divorce,  and  that  our 
first  Evangelist  felt  it  necessary  to  refute  them 
by  setting  forth  in  Mt.  v,  32,  Christ’s  different 
interpretation  which  alone  he  knew  to  fulfil  the 
text  of  that  passage  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  down  to 
its  “ yod  or  tittle.” 

IV.  Mt.  v,  32,  a Ful-  The  foregoing  examination 

filment  of  Deut.  of  Mt.  v,  31,  in  the  light  of 
xxiv,  1-4.  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  enables 

us  then  to  realize  how  the  Jewish  authorities, 
when  promulgating  and  enforcing  their  tra- 
ditional saying  concerning  the  practice  of  divorce, 
actually  thought  that  they  were  setting  forth 
fully  the  meaning  of  the  Mosaic  enactment 
regarding  the  same  point.  They  required  simply 
the  supplying  of  a bill  of  divorce  from  the  man 
who  wanted  to  put  away  his  wife,  because  they 
thought  that  the  giving  of  the  document — for 
whatever  cause  given — was  the  only  thing  pre- 
scribed for  this  purpose  by  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4; 
and  they  regarded  the  wife  thus  dismissed,  as  a 
woman  free  to  marry  another  man,  because  in 
their  eyes,  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  treated  her  as  such.1 

*Cfr.  Josephus,  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  Book  iv,  chap,  viii,  23. 


172  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


And  yet,  they  were  indeed  very  far  from  having 
realized  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Mosaic  enact- 
ment. The  text  of  this  passage,  whose  least  pro- 
visions they  considered  as  embodied  in  their  tra- 
ditional saying,  contains  an  expression  the  hear- 
ing of  which  on  the  practice  of  divorce  they  had 
undervalued,  and  the  importance  of  which  can 
hardly  be  exaggerated  for  realizing  the  sense  in 
which  our  first  Evangelist  understands  the 
Mosaic  text  in  Deut.  xxiv: 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife  and  marrieth  her 
(r6yDl),  and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find 
no  favor  in  his  eyes,  because  he  hath  found 
in  her  some  indecency  (nan  rmj?),  that  he 
writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of 
his  house, 

£.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 
and  becometh  another  man’s  (*inX 

3.  and  the  latter  man  (&^Nn)  hateth  her  and 

writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of 
his  house,  or  if  the  latter  man  who 

took  her  as  his  wife,  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  nbyz  who  put  her  away 

is  not  allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his 
wife,  after  that  she  is  defiled  for 

this  is  an  abomination  before  Yahweh,  and 
thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land  which 
Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an 
inheritance. 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  173 


This  most  important  expression  is,  “ after  that 
she  is  defiled,”  wherewith  the  Mosaic  lawgiver 
qualifies  in  Deut.  xxiv,  4,  the  marriage  inter- 
course of  a divorced  woman  with  a man  different 
from  her  first  husband.  The  verb  SEE,  “ to 
defile,”  used  in  that  expression,  is  the  one  which 
he  has  employed  in  his  description  of  the  com- 
mission of  adultery  in  Leviticus  xviii,  20,  and 
Numbers  v,  13,  14,  20. 1 Whence  it  clearly  fol- 
lows that  in  the  eyes  of  the  framer  of  the  decree 
in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  the  one  put  away  spoken 
of  in  the  preceding  verses  (Deut.  xxiv,  1-3) 
is  truly  the  wife  of  the  husband  who  has  dismissed 
her  and  who  is  still  living:  he  conceives  of  her 
as  one  bound  by  the  marriage  tie,  despite  the 
fact  that  he  has  described  her  dismissal  by  that 
husband  “ because  he  hath  found  in  her  some 
indecency,”  and  by  means  of  a bill  of  divorce,  and 
therefore  speaks  of  her  marriage  intercourse  with 
“ another  man  ” as  an  adulterous  defilement. 
And  this  throws  at  once  a vivid  light  upon  what 
St.  Matthew  regards  as  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  Mosaic  enactment  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  con- 
cerning a husband’s  dismissal  of  his  wife.  The 
case  of  dismissal  distinctly  dealt  with  by  the  law- 
giver of  Israel  is  that  of  a man  who  thinks  that 

1Cfr.  Ezechiel  xxiii,  17, 


174  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


he  has  a perfect  right  not  to  consider  himself 
responsible  for  the  subsequent  remarriage  of  the 
wife  whom  he  is  determined  to  put  away.  This 
right  the  lawgiver  allows  in  the  supposition  that 
the  man  in  question  has  really  the  grievance 
alleged:  “ if  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes,  because 
he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency  nny) 

literally:  “ the  nakedness  of  a thing,”  a euphem- 
ism signifying  a charge  {causa)  or  proof  of  con- 
jugal infidelity.1  To  deter  such  a man,  however, 
from  acting  upon  his  right  and  thereby  exposing 
the  dismissed  wife  to  what  he  regards  as  an  adul- 
terous intercourse  with  another  man  under  the 
cover  of  a second  marriage,  the  Deuteronomic 
writer  declares  expressly  that  the  dismissing  hus- 
band will  not  be  allowed  to  live  again  with  her, 
as  husband  and  wife,  “ after  that  she  is  defiled.” 
Viewed,  then,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  expres- 
sion, “ after  that  she  is  defiled,”  used  of  a remar- 
ried divorced  woman,  the  straightforward  mean- 
ing of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  according  to  St.  Mat- 
thew, comes  to  this:  the  remarriage  of  a woman 
divorced  because  of  her  alleged  unfaithfulness 
and  by  means  of  a bill  of  divorce,  is  an  adulterous 

1 For  the  discussion  of  the  exact  meaning  of  ‘erwath  dabhar 
(“the  nakedness  of  a thing”),  see  Appendix  II,  at  the  end  of  the 
volume. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  175 


union  for  which  a dismissing  husband  is  respon- 
sible unless  the  cause  of  dismissal,  suj^posed  in  the 
lawgiver’s  words  (viz.,  unfaithfulness),  be  really 
verified  in  her  case,  and  the  man  who  marries  her 
shares,  of  course,  directly  and  necessarily  in  the 
guilt  of  that  union. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  one  can  readily  see  how 
our  first  Evangelist  would  naturally  represent  in 
Mt.  v,  31,  32,  the  Jewish  authoritative  saying  as 
a defective  interpretation  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4, 
and  the  opposite  saying  of  Christ  as  a perfect  ful- 
filment of  that  Mosaic  passage.  The  Jewish 
saying: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

It  was  said  also : 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce; 

is  an  altogether  wrong  interpretation  of  Deut. 
xxiv,  1-4,  since  it  supposes  that  in  that  passage 
Moses  allowed  a man’s  dismissal  of  his  wife  for 
any  cause,  and  simply  required  him  to  supply  his 
dismissed  wife  with  a bill  of  divorce  whereby  she 
might  be  permitted  to  marry  again.1  Our  Lord’s 
opposite  saying  to  His  disciples: 

^fr.  the  words  of  Josephus  quoted  already  from  his  Antiqui- 
ties of  the  Jews,  Book  iv,  chap,  viii,  23. 


176  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  v,  32. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

every  one  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery; 

sets  forth  accurately  the  particulars  contained  in 
Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  which  have  a bearing  on  the 
lawfulness  of  a man’s  dismissal  of  his  wife,  or 
rather  sets  them  all  forth  more  expressly  and 
fully.  In  Mt.  v,  32,  as  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  the 
commission  of  adultery  is  mentioned  as  the  result 
of  the  marriage  of  one  put  away  by  her  husband; 
the  Deuteronomic  expression,  “ after  that  she  is 
defiled,”  finds  its  most  explicit  equivalent  in 
Christ’s  words,  “ makes  her  commit  adultery,” 
“ whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away,  commits 
adultery.”  In  Mt.  v,  32,  even  more  distinctly 
than  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  that  commission  of 
adultery  is  represented  as  the  personal  sin 
of  the  remarrying  divorced  woman;  in  say- 
ing that  she  commits  adultery , Jesus  con- 
veys fully  the  idea  implied  in  the  Hothpaal 
form  of  the  Hebrew  verb  in  the  Deuter- 
onomic phrase,  “ after  that  she  is  defiled,” 
literally,  “ after  that  she  has  allowed  her- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  177 


self  to  be  defiled,”  of  course  adulterously,  as 
we  have  seen.  In  Mt.  v,  32,  more  explicitly  than 
in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  the  dismissing  husband  is 
conceived  as  responsible  conditionally  for  her  sin 
of  adultery,  his  responsibility  in  that  regard  being 
dependent  on  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  one 
condition  mentioned  in  the  Mosaic  text,  viz.,  the 
wife’s  unfaithfulness,  which  is  evidently  stated 
more  plainly  in  our  first  Gospel,  “ except  because 
of  fornication,”  than  in  the  Deuteronomic  pas- 
sage: “ if  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes  because  he 
hath  found  in  her  the  nakedness  of  a thing.” 
Finally,  Our  Lord’s  last  sentence : “ and  who- 
ever marries  one  put  away,  commits  adultery,” 
brings  out  explicitly  the  fact  that  the  man  who 
marries  a divorced  woman,  directly  and  necessa- 
rily commits  adultery  with  her,  a fact  which  the 
Deuteronomic  lawgiver  had  simply  left  implied 
in  his  expression,  “ after  that  she  is  defiled.” 
Well,  then,  could  our  first  Evangelist  feel 
entitled  to  consider  Our  Lord’s  saying  concern- 
ing divorce  as  fulfilling  the  text  of  Deuteronomy 
xxiv,  1-4,  differently  from  that  of  the  official 
expounders  of  that  same  text  in  the  synagogues. 
Well  could  he  set  it  over  against  that  of  the  Jew- 
ish teachers,  in  one  of  those  antitheses  which  he 
grouped  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  work  as  so 


178  C HEIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


many  illustrations  that  Jesus  “ had  not  come  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil  ” by  setting  forth  a doctrine 
which  embodied  the  requirements  of  the  Law  to 
“ its  yod  and  tittle,”  and  which,  if  acted  upon, 
secured  a righteousness  greater  than  that  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  a righteousness  necessary 
to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

V.  Doctrine  Ascribed  Having  thus  determined 
to  Jesus  in  Mt.  v,  32.  the  reiati0n  of  fulfilment  in 

which  Mt.  v,  32,  stands  to  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  it 
becomes  very  easy  to  point  out,  by  way  of  con- 
clusion, the  precise  doctrine  concerning  divorce 
which  our  first  Evangelist  ascribes  to  Jesus  in 
His  saying: 

Mt.  v,  32. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery. 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  One,  who,  like  the  Mosaic 
lawgiver,  looks  upon  remarriage  after  divorce  as 
an  adulterous  defilement;  the  dismissed  wife 
“ commits  adultery  ” if  she  remarries,  and  “ who- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  179 


ever  marries  one  put  away  commits  adultery.”  1 
It  is  the  authoritative  teaching  of  One  who  has 
come  “ not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil  ” the  Law,  by 
declaring  solemnly  to  His  disciples  that  even  the 
very  highest  apparent  ground  (viz.,  conjugal 
unfaithfulness)  for  divorce,  is  but  a condition 
which  makes  lawful  the  permanent  separation  of 
husband  and  wife.2  It  is  a doctrine  entirely 
opposed  to  that  contained  in  the  Jewish  tra- 
ditional saying: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce; 

while  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jewish  teachers  any  rea- 
son was  valid  for  a man  to  divorce  his  wife,  and 
his  giving  of  a bill  of  divorce  severed  the  marriage 
tie  as  perfectly  as  death,  Jesus,  on  the  contrary, 
affirms  that  no  reason  is  valid  for  that  purpose, 

1 In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  expression  “ after  that  she  is 
defiled  ” in  Deut.  xxiv,  4,  places  the  marriage  intercourse  of  a 
divorced  woman  in  the  same  category  as  adultery,  Keil  signifi- 
cantly remarks : “ The  marriage  of  a divorced  woman  is  thus 
treated  implicitly  as  tantamount  to  adultery,  and  the  way  is  pre- 
pared for  the  teaching  of  Christ  on  the  subject  of  marriage: 

4 whoever  marries  one  put  away  commits  adultery’  (Mt.  v,  32).” 
3 As  distinctly  admitted  by  B.  Weiss  ( Die  Vier  Evangelien, 
p.  86.  Leipzig,  J.  C.  Hinrich,  1905),  with  regard  to  the  exceptive 
clause,  except  because  of  fornication:  “Von  einem  Ehescheidungs- 
grunde  ist  nicht  die  Rede,  wie  der  bedingungslose  Parallelsatz 
zeigt.” 


180  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


and  does  not  mention  the  giving  of  a bill  of 
divorce  which  could  be  necessary  only  in  the 
supposition  that  divorce  could  be  practised.1 
Finally,  it  is  the  very  doctrine  of  an  absolute 
rejection  of  divorce,  which  we  have  already  found 
embodied  in  the  other  early  documents  of  Chris- 
tianity that  we  have  examined,  the  very  doctrine 
of  an  absolute  rejection  of  divorce  distinctly 
taught  by  the  Catholic  Church  down  to  the 
present  day. 

1“The  bill  of  divorce,”  says  pertinently  H.  J.  Holtzmann  ( die 
Synoptiker,  3d  edit.,  p.  211),  “was  to  allow  the  remarriage  of  a 
woman  who  was  in  possession  of  the  said  document.  The  possi- 
bility of  obtaining  such  an  object,  however,  is  annulled  by  the 
declaration  that  whoever  marries  a dismissed  woman,  commits 
adultery  himself,  because  according  to  divine  right  she  is  not  free, 
but  is  the  wife  of  another.” 


CHAPTER  VII 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  FIRST  PART  OF  MT.  XIX,  3-12 

“ What  God  has  joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder  ” 

n our  last  chapter,  we  examined  the  passage 


of  St.  Matthew  (v,  31,  32)  which  sets  forth 
Our  Lord’s  teaching  concerning  divorce  with  the 
significant  clause:  7ra.pe.KT6s  Xoyov  Tropveias  “ except 

because  of  fornication.”  The  passage,  as  we 
pointed  out,  is  one  of  the  antitheses  grouped 
together  by  our  first  Evangelist  in  the  fifth  chap- 
ter of  his  Gospel,  for  the  general  purpose  of 
illustrating  the  manner  in  which  Christ’s  doc- 
trine, although  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
received  interpretation  of  the  Law  by  the  Jewish 
authorities  of  the  time,  nevertheless  did  not 
destroy  but  fulfilled  the  Law  (Cfr.  Mt.  v,  17-20) . 
Thus  viewed,  Mt.  v,  31,  32: 


Mt.  v. 


31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 


181 


182  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery; 

has  for  its  special  object  to  show  that  Our  Lord’s 
doctrine  concerning  divorce,  although  opposed 
to  that  of  the  Jewish  teachers  of  the  day,  far  from 
running  counter  to  the  classical  text  of  Deuter- 
onomy xxiv,  1-4,  regarding  divorce,  fulfils  it  to 
its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle.”  On  the  basis  of  this  Deu- 
teronomic  passage: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife  and  marrieth  her, 
and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in  his 
eyes,  because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency, 
that  he  writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 
and  becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth 
her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her 
hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house;  or  if  the 
latter  man  who  took  her  as  his  wTife,  die ; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away,  is  not 
allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after  that 
she  is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination  before 
Yahweh,  and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin,  the  land 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  183 


which  Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an 
inheritance ; 

the  official  expounders  of  the  Law  maintained 
that  Moses  had  considered  as  lawful  the  action 
of  a man  who,  for  whatever  cause,  dismissed  his 
wife  by  means  of  a bill  of  divorce;  and  in  conse- 
quence, they  confidently  proclaimed  in  their 
synagogues  the  traditional  rule  quoted  in  Mt. 
v,  31: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

According  to  them,  whoever  acted  upon  this 
rule  secured  fully  the  righteousness  of  the  law; 
by  the  bill  of  divorce  he  had  enabled  his  dismissed 
wife  to  remarry  lawfully,  and  therefore  was  not 
responsible  for  any  adultery  on  her  part  after 
he  had  thus  put  her  away.  Whoever,  on  the  con- 
trary, went  against  this  rule,  was  positively 
wrong;  by  withholding  the  bill  of  divorce  which 
alone  would  have  enabled  his  dismissed  wife  to 
unite  herself  lawfully  to  another  man,1  the  hus- 
band maliciously  exposed  her  to  an  adulterous 
union  after  he  had  refused  to  live  any  more  with 
her.2  Over  against  this  Jewish  interpretation  of 

1 Cfr.  Josephus,  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  Book  iv,  chap,  viii,  23. 

2 This  is  exactly  the  manner  in  which  the  malice  of  the  with- 
holding of  a bill  of  divorce  by  Papos  ben  Juda  is  described  in  the 
Talmudic  treatise  Sota,  chap,  i,  7 (Talmud  transl.  by  M.  Schwab, 
vol.  vii,  p.  236). 


184  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  our  first  Evangelist  sets  in  Mt. 
v,  32  : 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery; 

a very  different  one  which  he  represents  as  the 
positive  teaching  of  Christ  to  His  disciples  con- 
cerning divorce.  In  the  eyes  of  St.  Matthew,  the 
traditional  rule  of  the  Jews  was  decidedly  incor- 
rect: it  not  only  set  aside  the  cause  required  by 
Israel’s  lawgiver  from  the  man  who  was  deter- 
mined to  put  away  his  wife,  viz.,  “ because  he 
hath  found  in  her  some  indecency  ” “Dl  rmj? ; but 
it  also  treated  as  lawful  the  remarriage  of  a dis- 
missed wife  who  was  supplied  with  a bill  of 
divorce,  whereas  Moses  had  spoken  of  this  remar- 
riage as  an  adulterous  defilement:  “after  that 
she  is  defiled.”  The  doctrine  of  Christ,  on  the 
contrary,  fulfilled  perfectly,  according  to  our  first 
Evangelist,  the  requirements  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  text,  in  this  twofold  respect : a dismissed 
wife  cannot  remarry  without  committing  adul- 
tery together  with  the  man  who  marries  her,  and 
the  dismissing  husband  is  responsible  for  that 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  185 


adultery,  if  he  puts  her  away  without  the  speci- 
fied cause:  “ except  because  of  fornication  ” (the 
Greek:  A oyo?  iropvaas,  being  treated  as  the  equiv- 
alent of  the  Hebrew:  (nin  nnjj). 

Such  is  the  natural  meaning  of  the  antithesis 
in  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  when  considered  in  relation  to 
the  fulfilment  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  that  is,  in  a 
relation  manifestly  intended  by  our  first  Evan- 
gelist. Such  is  the  meaning  which  we  established 
in  our  foregoing  chapter,  and  in  virtue  of  which 
we  concluded  that  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  like  the  passages 
of  the  other  early  documents  of  Christianity  ex- 
amined before,  ascribes  to  Our  Lord  the  abso- 
lute rejection  of  divorce  which  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  has  always  enforced  as  Christ’s  own 
doctrine  concerning  that  great  ethical  question. 
Such  is  also  the  meaning  which,  as  can  be  readily 
seen,  it  behooves  us  distinctly  to  bear  in  mind 
while  endeavoring  to  determine  the  exact  sense 
of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  the  last  passage  which  remains 
to  be  examined  to  complete  our  exegetical  study 
on  Christ’s  teaching  concerning  divorce  in  the 
New  Testament:  this  last  passage,  like  the  one 
studied  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  is  found  in  St. 
Matthew’s  Gospel,  and  sets  forth  Our  Lord’s 
teaching  concerning  divorce  with  a restrictive 
clause  as  to  fornication,  “ nisi  ob  fornicationem.” 


186  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


The  following  is  the  literal  English  rendering 
of  this  last  important  passage: 

Mt.  xix. 

3.  And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife 
for  every  cause? 

4.  But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  that 
the  Creator  1 from  the  beginning 

made  them  male  and  female?  5.  and  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 
and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh? 

6.  so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

7.  They  say  to  Him: 

Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a bill  of 
divorce 

and  to  put  away? 

8.  He  says  to  them  that 

Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 
allowed  you  to  put  away  your  wives: 
but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 

1 The  reading  6 Krlaa s is  original  rather  than  the  alternate: 
6 7roiiJ<ras  (Cfr.  Mk.  x,  6).  See  Knabenbauer,  S.J.,  in  Matthaeum, 
vol.  ii,  p.  137  sq.  (Paris,  1893). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  187 


9.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
unless  for  fornication  (jitj  ini  nopveia), 
and  shall  marry  another  (kcu  yapfjo-r)  aAA^v)1 
commits  adultery  (/xotxarai), 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying  (kcu  6 ano\e\ vpivgv 
yap.fj(ra<;) , 

commits  adultery  (poLxarai). 

10.  The  disciples  say  to  Him. 

If  so  be  the  case  of  the  man  with  the  wife, 
it  is  not  expedient  to  marry. 

11.  But  He  said  to  them: 

All  do  not  receive  this  saying, 
but  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 

12.  For  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  so  born  from  their 

mother’s  womb; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  made  eunuchs  by 
men; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  made  themselves  eunuchs 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

He  who  can  receive  [it],  let  him  receive  [it]. 

1 The  text  which  we  have  adopted  in  verse  9 and  which  under- 
lies our  Vulgate:  “nisi  ob  fornicationem,  et  aliam  duxerit,  moe- 
chatur;  et  qui  dimissam  duxerit,  moechatur,”  is  undoubtedly  gen- 
uine. The  various  readings  found  in  certain  ancient  authorities 
and  more  or  less  implicitly  followed  by  some  modern  editors,  are 
due  to  a more  or  less  complete  scribal  assimilation  to  the  parallel 
passage  in  Mt.  v,  32.  The  omission  of  the  last  part:  sal  6 d-iro\e\v- 
^vi}v  y a n't)  eras  holxcLtcu  in  particular,  has  also  been  explained 
through  omceteleuton  (Cfr.  H.  Alford,  the  Greek  Testament,  vol.  i, 
6th  edit.,  p.  194;  H.  W.  A.  Meyer,  Critical  and  Exegetical  Hand- 
book to  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  Eng.  trans.,  p.  335.  New 
York,  Funk  & Wagnalls,  1884;  Jos.  Knabenbauer,  S.J.,  Comm, 
in  S.  Matthoeum,  vol.  ii,  p.  138;  W.  C.  Allen,  A Critical  and 
Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  p.  207. 
New  York,  1907;  etc.). 


188  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


I.  Two  Previous  Before  examining  this  long  pas- 
General  Remarks,  sage,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  pre- 
mise two  general  remarks.  The  first  is  sug- 
gested by  the  general  form  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12.  It 
is  obvious  that  Our  Lord’s  doctrine  concerning 
divorce  is  therein  set  forth  under  the  form  of 
direct  answers  to  questions  put  to  Him  by  His 
J ewish  contemporaries  who  naturally  used  terms 
in  harmony  with  their  actual  conceptions  of 
divorce,  and  who  received  answers  intelligible  to 
them  only  on  the  basis  of  the  same  conceptions. 
Hence,  it  readily  follows  that  to  ascertain  the 
exact  meaning  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  it  is  necessary 
to  examine  its  contents  in  the  full  light  of  the 
Jewish  conceptions  of  Our  Lord’s  day  concern- 
ing divorce.  The  rule  just  formulated  is  so  mani- 
festly in  harmony  with  the  most  elementary 
canons  of  exegesis,  that  it  must  needs  be  admitted 
by  every  unbiased  interpreter  of  the  passage 
under  consideration.  Our  second  general  remark 
bears  on  a fact  already  alluded  to,  viz.,  that  both 
Mt.  xix,  3-12,  and  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  have  one  and 
the  same  restrictive  clause  as  to  fornication. 
Now,  since  in  our  last  chapter  we  have  shown 
that  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  this  restrictive  clause  does 
not  set  forth  a ground  for  divorce,  a cause  that 
would  allow  remarriage  after  the  separation  of 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  189 


husband  and  wife,  it  is  antecedently  probable 
that  in  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  the  same  clause  should  not 
be  understood  in  a different  manner. 

Of  course,  this  second  remark  supplies  only 
an  antecedent  probability  which,  as  such,  should 
not  be  considered  as  settling  the  question  at  issue. 
In  an  exegetical  study,  like  the  present,  the 
exact  doctrine  ascribed  to  Our  Lord  in  an  early 
document  of  Christianity  must  be  actually 
derived  from  a thorough  examination  of  the  text 
which  bodies  it  forth.  And  on  this  account,  we 
now  proceed  to  determine  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
concerning  divorce,  which  is  contained  in  Mt. 
xix,  3-12,  through  the  strict  application  to  this 
passage  of  the  obvious  rule  of  exegesis  stated  in 
our  first  general  remark. 

II.  Christ’s  Teach-  The  unbiased  interpreter  of 
ing  in  Mt.  xix,  3-6.  xix,  3.12,  need  not  pro- 
ceed very  far  with  his  reading  of  the  passage  to 
meet  the  place  where  our  first  Evangelist  dis- 
tinctly sets  forth  Our  Lord’s  doctrine  concerning 
divorce,  that  is,  according  to  the  universal  con- 
ception of  His  Jewish  contemporaries,  concern- 
ing a man’s  dismissal  of  his  wife  that  would  entail 


190  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


the  severing  of  the  marriage  tie.1  He  indeed 
readily  sees  that  this  doctrine  is  not  given  in  the 
opening  verse: 

Mt.  xix,  3. 

And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause? 

which  manifestly  relates,  not  words  of  Jesus,  but 
a question  of  His  opponents  anxious  to  betray 
Him  into  a public  answer  regarding  divorce,  with 
which  they  may  find  fault.  But  he  no  less  readily 
recognizes  a record  of  Christ’s  own  teaching 
regarding  that  ethical  question,  in  the  very  next 
verses  of  the  passage : 

Mt.  xix. 

4.  But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  that 
the  Creator  from  the  beginning 
made  them  male  and  female?  5.  and  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh? 

6.  so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

1 According  to  Jewish  legists  of  Our  Lord’s  day,  only  the  man 
had  the  right  of  repudiation  (Cfr.  Josephus,  Antiq.  of  the  Jews, 
Book  xv,  chap,  vii,  10;  Book  xviii,  chap,  v,  4),  and  his  giving  of 
the  bill  of  divorce  severed  the  marriage  tie  as  effectively  as  death 
itself  (Cfr.  Talmud,  treatise  Qiddushin,  chap.  i). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  191 


His  first,  and  indeed  most  natural,  impression  in 
reading  attentively  these  verses  is  that  taken  in 
their  obvious  sense  they  ascribe  to  Jesus  an  abso- 
lute denial  of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce,  that  is, 
of  a putting  away  that  would  sever  the  marriage 
tie;  and  the  more  closely  he  examines  their  con- 
tents in  the  light  of  the  Jewish  conceptions  of  the 
time,  the  more  distinctly  he  realizes  that,  to  any 
and  every  unprejudiced  mind,  this  must  needs 
be  their  actual  sense.  The  first  text  of  the  Law 
(Gen.  i,  27)  which  Our  Lord  quotes  for  His 
adversaries,  was  a strong  argument  against  them, 
in  favor  of  the  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie: 

Mt.  xix,  4. 

But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read 
that  the  Creator  from  the  beginning 
made  them  male  and  female? 

By  these  words,  Christ  recalls  to  His  opponents 
the  fact  that  the  union  between  husband  and  wife 
is  not  of  human  origin,  that  a man  should  pre- 
sume to  break  it.  Its  origin  goes  back  to  the 
“ Creator,”  whose  actual  mind  “ from  the  begin- 
ning ” concerning  divorce  is  plain  from  the  man- 
ner of  union  which  he  established  between  the 
first  human  pair.  The  clause,  “ He  made  them 
male  and  female,”  was  understood  in  Our  Lord’s 
time  as  meaning,  “ He  made  them  one  male  and 


192  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


one  female  1 and  it  is  manifestly  adduced  by 
Jesus  as  proving  that  the  Creator  produced  a 
single  human  pair  because  he  willed  its  parties 
to  be  indissolubly  united  to  each  other  by  the 
conjugal  tie:  the  first  man  and  the  first  woman 
could  indeed  lawfully  be  joined  to  each  other  in 
marriage  in  virtue  of  their  physical  constitution, 
but  they  could  not  lawfully  he  so  joined  to  any 
other  after  separation,  since  no  other  human 
being  yet  existed.  Plainly  then,  in  making  as  he 
did  the  first  human  pair,  God  did  not  allow 
divorce. 

To  this  first  text  Jesus  adds  another,  taken 
also  from  the  Mosaic  Law  (Gen.  ii,  24).  It  is 
an  appeal  to  God’s  very  words  as  settling  for  all 
future  ages  the  indissoluble  union  which  a man 
must  admit  to  exist  between  him  and  his  wife 
through  the  marriage  intercourse: 

Mt.  xix. 

5.  And  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh; 

1 Cfr.  Talmud,  treatise  Y ebamoth,  chap,  vi,  6.  French  trans. 
by  M.  Schwab,  vol.  vii,  p.  92  sqq.  In  point  of  fact,  the  Hebrew 
text  of  Genesis  i,  27,  should  be  strictly  rendered,  “ a male  and  a 
female  he  created  them,”  for  “Of  and  fQpJ  are  not  col- 
lective, and  Gen.  v,  1 sqq.  shows  that  the  writer  meant  only  one 
pair  (Cfr.  Dillmann,  Genesis , Engl,  trans.,  vol.  i,  p.  84,  Edinburg, 
1897). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  193 


to  which  He  subjoins  at  once  His  own  inference 
from  the  text  just  quoted: 

Mt.  xix,  6a. 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

This  second  text  is,  of  course,  meant  by  Our 
Lord  to  confirm  powerfully  the  indissoluble 
nature  of  the  marriage  tie,  which  He  has  urged 
upon  His  adversaries  by  means  of  His  first 
Mosaic  quotation : what  the  Creator  really  meant 
in  establishing  the  conjugal  union  described  in 
Gen.  i,  27,  he  has  himself  explicitly  set  forth  in 
Gen.  ii,  24:  “And  said:  On  account  of  this ” 
etc.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  plainly  adduced  as 
forming  a new  argument  in  Mt.  xix,  4-6: 1 even 
though  Christ’s  opponents  should  remain  uncon- 
vinced by  His  foregoing  reason  against  the  law- 
fulness of  divorce  drawn  from  God’s  purpose  in 
making  the  first  human  pair,  yet,  they  should 
admit  the  validity  of  another  argument  drawn 
this  time  from  the  very  words  of  God  which  J esus 
now  quotes  for  them  : 

1 The  chief  reason  for  considering  these  two  texts  of  Genesis 
as  meant  to  be  distinct  arguments  in  Mt.  xix,  3-6,  is  drawn  from 
the  fact  that  these  texts  are  separated  by  the  clause  koX  elirev 
“ and  said”  (Mt.  xix,  5),  which  is  not  found  in  St.  Mark’s  parallel 
passage  (Mk.  x,  6 sqq.). 


194  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  xix. 

5.  And  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 
and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh. 

It  must  be  manifest  to  them  that  it  is  God’s  dis- 
tinct will  that  a man  shall  ever  look  upon  the 
union  entailed  by  marriage  intercourse  as  more 
intimate  and  more  sacred  than  even  that  close 
union  which  God  also  has  established  between  a 
child  and  the  authors  of  his  life: 

Mt.  xix. 

5.  And  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife. 

It  must  be  evident  to  all  present  that  it  is  God’s 
explicit  will  that  a man  shall  always  consider  the 
consummation  of  marriage  as  actually  making 
of  him  and  of  his  wife  only  one  principle  of 
physical  life: 

Mt.  xix,  5d. 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh. 

Whence  Christ’s  immediate,  and  obviously  ready, 
inference:  after  the  consummation  of  marriage 
husband  and  wife  have,  by  God’s  decree,  ceased 
to  be  one  man  and  one  woman  able  to  unite  them- 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  195 


selves  in  lawful  wedlock  to  whom  they  would; 
they  are  now  husband  and  wife;  they  belong 
together  and  form  one  indivisible  principle  of 
human  life: 

Mt.  xix,  6a. 

so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 

It  is  thus  plain  to  the  careful  interpreter,  that 
Jesus  adduces  here  these  two  several  texts  of  the 
Law,  as  two  unquestionable  proofs  of  the  unlaw- 
fulness of  the  putting  away  of  one’s  wife  that 
would  sever  the  marriage  tie : such  putting  away 
goes  against  God’s  undoubted  purpose  in  creat- 
ing the  first  human  pair  (Gen.  i,  27)  ; it  goes 
also,  and  more  particularly,  against  God’s  ever- 
binding  command  that  a man  should  regard  as 
indissoluble  the  tie  entailed  between  him  and 
his  wife,  by  the  consummation  of  marriage  (Gen. 
ii,  24).  Christ’s  mind  is  manifestly  set  against 
the  lawfulness  of  divorce;  He  wants  his  hearers 
to  realize  the  grounds  for  His  position;  and 
finally,  to  exclude  every  possibility  of  a doubt 
as  to  His  exact  mind,  He  adds  of  His  own 
accord  the  conclusion  which  most  necessarily  fol- 
lows from  His  arguments: 

Mt.  xix. 

6b.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 

6c.  let  not  man  put  asunder. 


196  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


In  the  eyes  of  His  hearers  Our  Lord’s  opposition 
to  divorce  was  as  evident  and  as  absolute  as 
human  speech  could  make  it : according  to  God’s 
primitive  and  unchangeable  will  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  a lawful  divorce.  The  putting  away  of 
one’s  wife  after  marriage  intercourse,  for  the 
purpose  of  severing  the  marriage  tie  thus  formed, 
is  decidedly  unlawful,  because  it  is  contrary  to 
the  manner  of  union  intended  by  God  from  the 
beginning,  and  manifestly  enforced  by  Him  in 
a decree  which  all  present  must  recognize  as  an 
ever-binding  command. 

III.  Mt.  xix,  3-6,  Such  then,  undoubtedly,  is  the 

in  the  Light  of  plain  meaning  of  the  words 
Mt.  v,  31,  32.  r b 

which  our  first  Lvangelist  places 

on  Christ’s  lips  in  Mt.  xix,  4-6.  In  recording 

them,  therefore,  he  must  have  realized  that  he 

was  thereby  ascribing  to  Jesus  an  emphatic 

denial  of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce;  all  the  more 

so  because  in  an  earlier  passage: 

Mt.  v. 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  197 


32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  marries  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery; 

he  had  already  represented  his  Master  as  holding 
the  same  doctrine  and  as  vindicating  it  from 
opposition  to  the  Mosaic  Law.  In  point  of  fact, 
it  is  because  he  had  distinctly  in  view  this  earlier 
passage  of  his,  that  our  first  Synoptist  has  placed 
in  Mt.  xix,  3-6: 


Mt.  xix. 

3.  And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife 
for  every  cause? 

4.  But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  that 
the  Creator  from  the  beginning 

made  them  male  and  female?  5.  And  said : 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh? 

6.  so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 
What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder; 

Our  Lord’s  answer  to  His  opponents,  in  its 
actual  preceding  context. 


198  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


As  it  can  readily  be  seen,  this  preceding  con- 
text is  made  up  of  two  several  elements.  The 
first  consists  in  a captious  question  put  to  Jesus 
by  “ Pharisees  ” and  related  by  the  Evangelist 
in  the  following  manner: 

Mt.  xix,  3. 

And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause? 

The  second  element  is  St.  Matthew’s  own 
formula  of  introduction  of  Our  Lord’s  words  as 
an  answer  to  that  very  question : 

Mt.  xix. 

4.  But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  that 
the  Creator  from  the  beginning 
made  them  male  and  female.  . . . 

Of  these  two  elements,  the  latter  affords  us 
direct  access  to  St.  Matthew’s  personal  frame  of 
mind  at  the  precise  moment  he  was  contem- 
plating the  introduction  of  the  words  of  Christ 
which  we  have  examined.  At  that  very  moment, 
he  distinctly  viewed  those  words  as  Christ’s  own 
answer,  “He  answering  said  ” (6  air oKpLdeU  Amv), 
and  as  an  answer  of  His  in  opposition  to  the  cap- 
tious question  of  Christ’s  adversaries : " But  He 
answering  said  ” (6  avoKpLOeU  eTnev). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  199 


Having  thus  realized  the  Evangelist’s  exact 
frame  of  mind  in  wording  the  second  element  of 
the  context  which  precedes  immediately  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  Mt.  xix,  4-6,  the  careful  inter- 
preter proceeds  to  examine  in  its  light  the  other 
element  of  that  context,  viz.,  the  ensnaring  ques- 
tion related  by  the  same  Evangelist  in  Mt.  xix,  3 : 

And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause? 

As  he  knows,  the  wording  of  this  captious 
question  is  oftentimes  explained  independently 
of  Our  Lord’s  earlier  answer  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32.  It 
is  supposed  that  its  clause,  “for  every  cause,” 
bespeaks  a direct  reference  to  a controversy  of 
St.  Matthew’s  time  between  the  disciples  of 
Hillel  and  those  of  Shammai:  while  the  former 
maintained  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  for  any 
cause,1  the  latter  admitted  it  for  the  sole  cause 
of  the  wife’s  unfaithfulness.  In  view  of  this  ref- 
erence, the  question:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put  away 
one’s  wife  for  every  cause?  ” would  be  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  Christ’s  adversaries  to  betray  Him 
into  a public  “ declaration  in  favor  of  one  of  the 
rival  schools  of  the  day  (and  it  would  doubtless 

aCfr.  Talmud,  Gittin,  ix,  10,  (11);  Sota,  i,  1. 


200  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


be  that  of  Shammai,  for  with  the  clause,  ‘ for 
every  cause,’  they  suggested  the  answer  No),  so 
that  they  might  be  able  to  stir  up  party  feeling 
against  Him.”  1 

As  the  interpreter  readily  sees,  this  view  of  the 
question  in  Mt.  xix,  3,  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put  away 
one’s  wife  for  every  cause?”  goes  against  the 
well-ascertained  intention  of  St.  Matthew  of  pre- 
senting Our  Lord’s  words  as  an  answer  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  mind  of  His  adversaries : But  He 

answering  said:  Have  you  not  read,”  etc. 

What  our  first  Evangelist  represents  Jesus  as 
denying  is  not  the  lawfulness  of  putting  away 
for  every  cause,  which  was  maintained  by  the 
school  of  Ilillel  in  opposition  to  the  lawfulness 
of  putting  away  for  only  one  cause  which  was 
affirmed  by  that  of  Shammai,  but  the  lawfulness 
of  putting  away  upon  which  both  schools  agreed, 
viz.,  the  lawfulness  of  putting  away  that  would 
sever  the  marriage  tie , since  on  the  basis  of  two 
passages  of  the  Law  contrary  to  the  dissolubility 
of  the  conjugal  union,  St.  Matthew  makes  Christ 
emphatically  and  unequivocally  declare: 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 

let  not  man  put  asunder. 

*1*.  A.  Meyer,  on  St.  Matthew,  p.  337  (Engl,  trans.,  New 
York,  1884). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  201 


The  exegete  is  thus  led  to  reject  this  view  of 
the  captious  question,  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put  away 
one’s  wife  for  every  cause?  ” as  evidently  opposed 
to  St.  Matthew’s  mind  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration. He  is  also  led  to  adopt  another  which 
admits  that  Mt.  xix,  3 : 

And  Pharisees  approached  Him 
tempting  Him  and  saying: 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause? 

is  indeed  worded  in  our  first  Gospel  with  refer- 
ence to  a controversy  of  St.  Matthew’s  time, 
but  which  regards  that  controversy  as  no  other 
than  the  one  contemplated  in  St.  Matthew’s 
earlier  passage  concerning  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce : 

Mt.  v. 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

82.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 

The  controversy  referred  to  in  this  earlier  pas- 
sage of  St.  Matthew  was,  of  course,  of  much 
greater  importance  in  the  eyes  of  our  first  Evan- 


202  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


gelist  than  that  which  existed  between  the  rival 
schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai.  It  was  part  and 
parcel  of  the  general  controversy,  capital  in  St. 
Matthew’s  eyes,  as  to  whether  Jesus,  through 
going  deliberately  against  traditional  interpreta- 
tions of  the  Mosaic  Law  and  demanding  a higher 
righteousness  than  that  of  the  Scribes  and 
“ Pharisees  ” which  was  secured,  as  these  oppo- 
nents of  Christ  thought,  by  a strict  compliance 
with  their  traditional  sayings,  really  went  against 
the  written  Law  itself,  or  on  the  contrary  ful- 
filled it  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle.”  (Cfr.  Mt.  v, 
17-20.)  It  bore  directly  on  the  rival  interpre- 
tations of  the  Deuteronomic  decree  (Deut.  xxiv, 
1-4)  concerning  divorce,  that  of  Christ’s  oppon- 
ents (Mt.  v,  31)  and  that  of  Christ  (Mt.  v,  32), 
respectively.  In  virtue  of  the  traditional  inter- 
pretation, the  righteousness  of  the  Law  was  fully 
secured  by  a strict  compliance  with  the  saying  of 
the  Elders : 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

The  higher  righteousness  required  of  His  dis- 
ciples by  Jesus  can  only  be  secured  by  a strict 
compliance  with  a different  interpretation  of  the 
Deuteronomic  decree,  viz.,  the  one  expressly  set 
forth  by  Jesus: 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  203 


32.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 
and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery; 

as  fulfilling  that  decree  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle,” 
despite  the  charge  of  destroying  the  Law  urged 
against  Him  for  His  rejection  of  the  traditional 
saying.  It  was  a higher  righteousness,  and  it 
was  required  for  getting  admittance  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  because  prescribed  by  the 
written  Law  of  God. 

In  view  of  these  data,  the  interpreter  of  Mt. 
xix,  3,  6,  that  is,  of  a passage  of  the  same 
Evangelist,  can  easily  realize  that  the  “ tempt- 
ing ” question  of  Pharisees:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put 
away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause?”  is  worded  with 
a direct  reference  to  the  controversy  in  Mt.  v,  31, 
32.  At  this  late  stage  in  the  evangelical  narra- 
tive, “ Pharisees  ” are  well  known  as  staunch 
upholders  of  everything  traditional,  as  constantly 
on  the  trail  of  Jesus  for  the  purpose  most  import- 
ant in  their  eyes  of  charging  Him  with  infrac- 
tions of  the  righteousness  of  the  Law  because  He 
repeatedly  made  light  of  the  traditions  of  the 
Elders  (Cfr.  Mt.  xii,  2,  3;  xv,  1,  2;  Mk.  vii,  9- 
13;  etc.),  and  it  is  manifestly  in  this,  their 


204  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


habitual  frame  of  mind,  that  St.  Matthew  con- 
templates them  approaching  Christ  and  “ tempt- 
ing ” Him.  Our  first  Evangelist  naturally 
thinks  of  them  as  perfectly  sure  that  divorce — 
that  is  to  say,  the  putting  away  of  one’s  wife  so 
as  to  sever  the  marriage  tie — is  lawful  for  every 
cause:  their  traditional  rule,  which  he  has  pre- 
viously recorded  (Mt.  v,  31)  declares  it  so,1  and 

1 The  following  are  the  principal  reasons  for  regarding  this 
as  the  traditional  interpretation  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  among  the 
Jews  of  St.  Matthew’s  time:  (1)  the  official  expounders  of  this 
passage  of  the  Law  solemnly  proclaimed  in  the  synagogues  of  that 
day,  as  the  only  thing  required  by  Moses  from  a man  who  wants  to 
put  away  his  wife,  that  he  shall  give  her  a bill  of  divorce  (Cfr. 
the  discussion  of  Mt.  v,  31,  in  the  foregoing  chapter)  ; (2)  such 
authorized  Jewish  expositors  of  the  Mosaic  Law  as  Philo  (about 
20  b.c-50  a.d.)  and  Josephus  (about  37-100  a.d.)  in  setting  forth 
for  their  Gentile  readers  the  contents  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4,  mani- 
festly record  the  traditional  interpretation  of  that  passage,  and 
they  use  for  that  purpose  expressions  practically  identical  with 
the  clause  “ for  every  cause,”  as  we  understand  it,  in  Mt.  xix,  3. 
The  former,  a prominent  Alexandrian  Jew,  says:  “If,  proceeds 
the  lawgiver,  a woman  having  been  divorced  from  her  husband 
under  any  'pretence  whatever,  and  having  married  another,  has 
again  become  a widow,  whether  her  second  husband  is  alive  or 
dead,  still  she  must  not  return  to  her  former  husband,  but  may  be 
united  to  any  man  in  the  world  rather  than  to  him  . . . ” (0/ 
Special  Laics,  against  Adultery,  etc.;  chap,  v,  Engl,  transl.,  by 
C.  D.  Yonge,  vol.  iii,  p.  310  sq.)  The  latter,  a celebrated  Pales- 
tinian priest  and  Pharisee,  writes:  “ He  who  desires  to  be  divorced 
from  his  wife  for  any  cause  whatever  (and  many  such  causes 
happen  among  men),  let  him  in  writing  give  utterance  that  he 
will  never  use  her  as  his  wife  any  more  ...”  ( Antiquities  of  the 
Jews,  Book  iv,  chap,  viii,  23)  ; (3)  it  is  quite  certain  that  in  St. 
Matthew’s  time,  both  the  Jewish  teachers  and  their  hearers,  acting 
manifestly  on  the  traditional  interpretation  of  Deut.  xxiv,  l^t, 
practised  divorce  for  any  cause  (Cfr.  Josephus,  Life,  75,  76;  A. 
Edersheim,  the  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  vol.  ii,  p.  332, 
note  6). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  205 


in  the  eyes  of  traditionalistic  “ Pharisees  ” there 
is  no  doubt  that  whoever  acts  on  this  traditional 
rule  secures  the  righteousness  of  the  Law.  He 
no  less  naturally  contemplates  them  approaching 
Jesus  with  a definite  reason  for  thinking  that  He 
is  opposed  to  this  traditional  lawfulness,  since 
they  pointedly  ask  Him  if  He  admits  it:  “ Is  it 
lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause?  ” 
He  is  fully  aware  that  their  inquiry  is  prompted 
by  a hostile  motive,  by  the  purpose  of  eliciting  a 
negative  answer  in  manifest  opposition  to  the 
traditional  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  decree 
(Deut.  xxiv,  1-4),  which  they  may  charge  at 
once  with  destroying  the  Mosaic  Law,  however 
Jesus  may  contend  that  His  words  fulfil  it.  To 
the  mind  of  our  first  Evangelist,  the  definite  rea- 
son for  which  “ Pharisees  ” consider  Our  Lord 
as  opposed  to  the  traditional  lawfulness  of 
divorce,  and  which  leads  them  to  put  Him  a 
“ tempting  ” question  bearing  manifestly  on  the 
full  righteousness  affirmed  by  their  traditional 
rule,  cannot  be  doubtful.  It  is  clear  to  St.  Mat- 
thew that  Christ’s  opponents  are  aware  of  His 
declaration  as  he  has  previously  recorded  it : 1 

1 That  in  writing  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  our  first  Synoptist  had  actually 
in  mind  his  earlier  representation  of  Christ’s  doctrine  concerning 
divorce  in  Mt.  v,  31-32,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  in  both  these 
passages  he  deliberately  placed  on  Our  Lord’s  lips  characteristic 
expressions  which  show  the  manifest  dependence  of  the  later  on 
the  earlier  passage:  (Footnote  continued  at  bottom  of  page  206.) 


206  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  v. 


31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

32.  But  I say  to  you  that 
Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 


Their  “ tempting  ” question  implies  that  they 
have  construed  the  earlier  saying  of  his  Master 
(Mt.  v,  32),  exactly  as  he  has  presented  it  him- 
self. In  their  eyes  it  is  an  interpretation  of  the 
Mosaic  text,  which  treats  as  forbidden  the  sever- 
ing of  the  marriage  tie  to  the  full  extent  in  which 
this  severing  is  proclaimed  as  lawful  by  the  tra- 
ditional saying  (Mt.  v,  31)  : the  cause  of  forni- 
cation spoken  of  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1,  is  expressly 
given  in  Jesus’  own  saying  as  the  only  one 
making  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife,  and 
this  only  one  cause  does  not  make  it  lawful  to 
put  her  away  so  as  to  sever  the  marriage  tie,  since 


Mt.  v,  82. 

But  I say  to  you  that 
Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornica- 
tion . . . 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one 
put  away, 
commits  adultery. 


Mt.  xix,  9. 

But  I say  to  you  that 
Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
unless  for  fornication  . . . 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  207 


His  same  saying  absolutely  declares:  Whoever 

shall  marry  one  put  away,  commits  adultery  ” 1 
They  now  ask  Jesus:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put  away 
one’s  wife  for  every  cause?  ” in  distinct  view  of 
His  former  total  denial  of  the  lawfulness  of  put- 
ting away  one’s  wife  so  as  to  sever  the  marriage 
tie.  They  expect  in  return  a reaffirmation  of  this 
denial,  and  are  prepared  to  treat  such  direct 
rejection  of  the  traditional  lawfulness  of  divorce 
for  every  cause,  as  a most  certain  rejection  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  Law,  despite  Christ’s  asser- 
tion of  fulfilling  that  Law  by  His  requirement 
of  a higher  righteousness. 

Whoever  then  understands,  in  the  manner  just 
described,  the  “ tempting  ” question  of  “ Phari- 
sees ”:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife  for 
every  cause?  ” can  readily  see  that  he  takes  it  in 
a sense  most  consonant  to  the  actual  circum- 
stances of  St.  Matthew’s  time  and  frame  of  mind. 
He  can  readily  see,  also,  how  our  first  Synoptist 
could  most  fittingly  treat  Our  Lord’s  immediate 
answer  to  the  question  of  His  adversaries,  as  a 
direct  reply  to  it: 

1This  absolute  character  of  the  concluding  clause:  “Whoever 
shall  marry  one  put  away,  commits  adultery,”  has  been  distinctly 
perceived  by  the  Protestant  commentator,  B.  Weiss,  who  says  on 
Mt.  v,  32:  “Von  einem  Ehescheidungsgrunde  ist  nicht  die  Rede 
(in  Christ’s  saying),  wie  der  bedingungslose  Parallelsatz  zeigt” 
( Die  vier  Evangelien,  2te  Auflage,  Leipsig,  1905;  p.  36).  See 
also  Amram,  the  Jewish  Law  of  Divorce,  p.  84  (London,  1897). 


208  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  xix. 

4.  But  He  answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  that 
the  Creator  from  the  beginning 
made  them  male  and  female?  5.  and  said: 

On  account  of  this  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh? 

6.  so  that  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one  flesh. 
What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

In  the  eyes  of  our  first  Evangelist,  “ Pharisees  ” 
have  confronted  Jesus  with  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  which  they  consider  as  certain  in  virtue 
of  their  traditional  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic 
Law  concerning  it,  and  Jesus  appeals  here,  as 
was  His  wont,1  from  a traditional  interpreta- 
tion to  the  very  text  of  the  Law:  “But  He 
answering  said:  Have  you  not  read  . . . as 
a manifest  proof  of  His  harmony  with  the  Law 
itself.  To  His  mind,  Christ  feels  called  upon  to 
recall  to  His  adversaries  that  His  requirement 
of  a higher  righteousness  than  theirs  with  regard 
to  the  union  which  must  exist  between  husband 
and  wife,  is  based  on  two  several  texts  of  the 
Divine  Law.  Our  first  Synoptist  knows  that  the 
question:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife 

1 Cfr.  Mt.  xii,  2,  3;  xv,  4,  5;  Mk.  vii,  9-13. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  209 


for  every  cause?  ” assumes  the  perfect  lawfulness 
of  severing  the  marriage  tie  for  every  cause,  and 
Jesus,  as  he  readily  sees,  appeals  to  two  texts 
of  the  Law,  which  rule  out  this  lawfulness  alto- 
gether: such  lawfulness  was  in  no  way  allowed 
by  the  “ Creator,”  who  “ from  the  beginning  ” 
produced  a single  human  pair:  “made  them 
male  and  female”  (Gen.  i,  27),  and  is  forever 
excluded  by  God’s  very  words,  “ and  said,” 
decreeing  that  the  marriage  relation  once  con- 
summated makes  of  husband  and  wife  one  un- 
breakable unit:  “ On  account  of  this,  a man  shall 
leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave 
to  his  wife,  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh  ” 
(Gen.  ii,  24).1  Finally,  the  traditional  saying 
which  in  the  eyes  of  “ Pharisees  ” was  an  abso- 
lute authorization  of  severing  the  marriage  tie 
for  every  cause,  appears  to  St.  Matthew  as 
directly  met  by  the  no  less  absolute  rejection  of 

1 When  C.  G.  Montefiore  {the  Synoptic  Gospels,  London,  1909, 
vol.  ii,  p.  688)  writes:  “Of  course,  the  implication  which  Jesus 
finds  in  the  words  of  Genesis  is  not  really  to  be  found  there,”  he 
makes  a biased  assertion.  Another  Jewish  writer,  M.  Mielziner 
{the  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce ; New  York,  1901,  p. 
116),  rightly  says:  “The  ethical  principle  of  marriage  is  certainly 
against  a dissolution.  This  principle  demands  that  those  who 
enter  into  the  conjugal  covenant  should  regard  it  as  a relation 
permanent  as  their  own  lives.  The  very  words  of  Scripture,  in 
speaking  of  the  original  institution  of  marriage — “ Man  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  two  in  one  flesh  ” (Gen.  ii, 
24) — intimate  that  marriage  shall  be  an  indissoluble  union.” 


210  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


the  lawfulness  of  severing  the  marriage  tie  for 
any  cause:  “What  therefore  God  has  joined 
together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.” 

The  foregoing  examination  of  the  text  of  Mt. 
xix,  3-6,  discloses  therefore  two  things  to  the 
mind  of  its  careful  interpreter:  (1)  that  taken 
in  themselves,  Our  Lord’s  words  in  Mt.  xix,  4-6, 
set  forth  His  explicit  and  absolute  rejection  of 
the  putting  away  of  one’s  wife  so  as  to  sever  the 
marriage  tie;  and  (2)  that  considered  in  their 
immediately  preceding  context,  these  same  words 
of  Christ  are  viewed  by  St.  Matthew  as  a 
renewed  denial  of  the  traditional  lawfulness  of 
divorce,  so  formulated  by  his  Master  as  to  vindi- 
cate His  former  requirement  of  a higher  right- 
eousness than  that  of  His  opponents,  by  showing 
that  this  requirement  is  enjoined  by  the  written 
Law  of  God. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  SECOND  PART  OF  MT.  XIX,  3-12 

“ Unless  for  fornication  ” 

The  examination  of  the  first  part  of  Mt.  3-12, 
which  we  pursued  in  our  last  chapter,  has 
allowed  us  to  ascertain  the  fact  that  “ Pharisees  ” 
approached  Our  Lord  in  order  to  controvert  the 
accuracy  of  His  former  declaration  concerning 
divorce  as  it  is  recorded  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32: 


Mt.  v. 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

32.  But  I say  to  you  that 
Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication 
makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
commits  adultery. 

As  we  have  seen,  these  opponents  of  Christ  were 
aware  of  His  contention  to  fulfil  the  text  of  the 
Mosaic  decree  concerning  divorce  (Deut.  xxiv, 

211 


212  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


1-4)  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle,”  although  He 
required  for  admittance  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  a righteousness  higher  than  the  one 
secured  by  a man’s  compliance  with  the  tradi- 
tional rule  of  the  Elders: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

31.  It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

In  the  interval  between  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  (Mt.  v)  and  their  present  interview  with 
Jesus  (Mt.  xix) , they  had  examined  His  declara- 
tion in  Mt.  v,  32,  in  the  full  light  of  that  con- 
tention of  His,  and  they  now  thought  themselves 
able  to  disprove  it. 

I.  Second  Question  The  careful  interpreter  of 
of  Pharisees:  JNXt.  xix,  3-12,  who  bears  this 

Mt.  xix,  7.  fn  mind,  will  find  it  compara- 

tively easy  to  realize  the  exact  import  of  the  sec- 
ond part  of  that  passage.  This  second  part 
opens  with  a second  question  of  “ Pharisees  ”: 

Mt.  xix,  7. 

Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a bill  of 
divorce 

and  to  put  away? 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  213 


Christ’s  opponents  manifestly  refer  Him  to  the 
Mosaic  decree  concerning  divorce  contained  in 
Deut.  xxiv,  1-4: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife  and  marrieth  her, 
and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in  his 
eyes,  because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency, 
that  he  writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 
and  becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth  her 
a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand, 
and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house;  or  if  the  latter 
man,  who  took  her  as  his  wife,  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  is  not 
allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after  that 
she  is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination  before 
Yahweh,  and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land 
which  Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an 
inheritance. 

Guided  by  their  tradition,  they  assume  that 
Moses’  decree  has  for  its  purpose  to  declare  it 
lawful  for  a man  to  practise  divorce,  under  the 
sole  condition  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  when  dis- 
missing his  wife.  And  it  is  against  such  purpose 
that  they  think  Jesus  goes  by  His  total  rejection 
of  divorce,  as  is  proved  by  the  distinct  point  of 
their  objection:  " Why  then  did  Moses  com- 


214  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


mand  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put 
away?”1  Now,  the  exact  manner  in  which 
“ Pharisees  ” had  been  led  thus  to  formulate  their 
objection  can  }^et  be  realized  by  the  careful  inter- 
preter of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  who  views  this  passage 
exactly  as  St.  Matthew  does,  viz.,  as  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  Christ’s  opponents  to  disprove 
Jesus’  contention  to  fulfil  the  text  of  the  Law, 
while  demanding  a righteousness  higher  than  the 
one  enjoined  by  their  traditional  saying. 

That  a declaration  of  Jesus  might  rightly  be 
claimed  by  Him  to  fulfil  the  text  of  the  Law, 
while  requiring  a righteousness  higher  than  the 
one  enforced  by  certain  traditional  sayings,  was 
undoubted  to  all  in  Israel.  Similar  declarations 
were  repeatedly  made  by  Rabbis,  and  had  to  be 
allowed  as  correct,  because  they  obviously  did  not 
destroy  the  precept  of  the  Law  construed  in 
agreement  with  the  lawgiver’s  purpose.  On 
account  of  this  “ Pharisees  ” could  not  deny,  for 
instance,  that  Christ’s  declaration  as  recorded  in 
Mt.  v,  27,  28: 

1 The  Hebrew  perfects  and  vbv  are  coupled  in  the 

original  text  of  Deut.  xxiv,  1,  with  the  prefix  *j  and  hence  were 
treated  by  Jewish  exegetes  as  imperfects  of  command,  so  that  the 
Mosaic  decree  was  rendered  by  them:  “then  let  him  give  into 
her  hand  (the  bill  of  divorce)  and  let  him  put  her  out  of  his  house” 
(Talmud,  Gittin,  ix,  10  [11]). — Thus  the  text  of  Moses  was  made 
to  express  a command  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  215 

Mt.  v. 

27.  You  have  heard  that  it  was  said: 

Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

28.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  looking  on  a woman  to  lust  after  her, 
has  already  committed  adultery  with  her  in  his 
heart ; 

was  rightly  claimed  by  Him  to  fulfil  the  text  of 
the  Law,  although  it  requires  a higher  righteous- 
ness than  the  one  demanded  by  the  traditional 
saying,  “ Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,’’  to 
which  it  is  opposed.  The  precept  of  the  Law 
was  in  this  case  evidently  interpreted  in  a man- 
ner consistent  with  the  purpose  of  Moses  to  pro- 
hibit adultery,  and  therefore  the  text  of  the  Law 
could  be  considered  as  fulfilled  by  being  made 
to  forbid  not  only  lustful  actions,  but  also  lustful 
desires  expressly  forbidden  by  the  Divine  Law: 
“ Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor’s  wife  ” 
(Deut.  v,  21;  Cfr.  Rom.  vii,  7) . But,  it  seemed 
certain  to  Our  Lord’s  opponents  that  Jesus’ 
former  declaration: 

Mt.  v,  32. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

every  one  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery ; 


216  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


could  not  rightly  be  claimed  by  Him  to  fulfil  to 
its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle  ” the  text  of  Deut.  xxiv, 
1-4,  while  demanding  a righteousness  higher  than 
the  one  enforced  by  the  opposite  traditional 
saying : 

Mt.  v,  31. 

It  was  said  also: 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce; 


for  the  simple  reason  that  Christ’s  declaration 
interprets  Moses’  command  to  give  a bill  of 
divorce  and  to  put  away,  in  a manner  which 
destroys  the  lawgiver’s  purpose.1  According  to 
them,  this  command  of  Moses  evinces  manifestly 
the  purpose  of  Israel’s  lawgiver  to  allow  remar- 
riage after  a lawful  dismissal  of  one’s  wife,  since 
it  is  a bill  of  divorce  which  is  enjoined;  and  to 
allow  it  for  whatever  cause  (whether  for  forni- 
cation or  not)  that  document  might  be  given, — 
since  it  is  the  giving  of  a bill  of  divorce,  and  noth- 
ing more,  which  is  required  by  “ Moses’  command 


1 It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  of  all  the  antitheses  given  by  St. 
Matthew  (chap,  v)  to  illustrate  how  Jesus  fulfils  the  Law,  although 
He  demands  a righteousness  higher  than  that  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  the  antithesis  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32,  is  the  only  one  to  which 
“ Pharisees  ” might  be  tempted  to  object  on  the  score  that  Our 
Lord’s  declaration  construed  the  text  of  Moses  in  opposition  to 
the  purpose  of  the  lawgiver’s  precept. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  217 


to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away.”  Ac- 
cording to  them,  too,  Christ’s  former  declaration 
(Mt.  v,  32)  evinces  no  less  manifestly  His  inten- 
tion to  do  away  with  this  assumed  purpose  of 
Moses  in  commanding  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  be- 
fore putting  away  one’s  wife.  Had  Jesus  in- 
tended in  that  declaration  to  construe  the  text  of 
the  Law  concerning  divorce  (Deut.  xxiv,  1-4) , in 
agreement  with  the  traditional  purpose  of  its 
framer,  He  would  have  worded  His  interpreta- 
tion of  it  in  strict  accordance  with  that  purpose. 
The  clause:  “Every  one  putting  away  his  wife 
except  because  of  fornication  ” which  sets  forth 
that  only  the  man  who  has  the  cause  of  fornica- 
tion against  his  wife  may  lawfully  dismiss  her, 
would  have  run  thus : " Whoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife  with  the  cause  of  fornication  or  not/J 
since  the  putting  away  of  one’s  wife  is  made 
lawful  by  Moses  to  any  one  and  for  any  cause , 
by  the  simple  giving  of  a bill  of  divorce.  Again, 
as  the  giving  of  that  document  makes  lawful 
remarriage  after  dismissal,  instead  of  saying: 
Whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away,  commits 
adultery  ” Jesus  would  have  negatived  the  guilt 
of  adultery  with  regard  to  both  the  dismissing 
husband  who  shall  marry  another  woman  after 
the  lawful  dismissal  of  his  wife,  and  the  man  who 


218  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


shall  marry  one  put  away.  His  declaration  would 
necessarily  have  run  as  follows: 

“ Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
with  the  cause  of  fornication  or  not 
and  shall  marry  another 
does  not  commit  adultery, 
and  he  who  shall  marry  one  put  away 
does  not  commit  adultery.” 

But,  as  a fact,  Christ’s  declaration  sets  forth 
the  opposite  of  this.  It  specifies  the  cause  of 
fornication  as  the  only  one  which,  in  Deut. 
xxiv,  1,  makes  it  lawful  for  a man  to  dismiss  his 
wife  (“except  because  of  fornication”),  and  it 
treats  the  lawful  dismissal  for  this  only  one  cause 
as  leaving  intact  the  marriage  tie  (“whoever 
shall  marry  one  put  away,  commits  adultery  ”). 
In  the  eyes  of  “ Pharisees,”  therefore,  such  inter- 
pretation of  the  Mosaic  decree  stood  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  for  every 
cause  which,  according  to  Jewish  tradition,  it 
was  Moses’  purpose  to  proclaim  when  framing 
his  “ command  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to 
put  away.”  Hence,  it  was  plain  to  them  that 
if  they  could  only  induce  Jesus  to  commit  Him- 
self again  to  the  same  total  rejection  of  the  law- 
fulness of  divorce  as  is  set  forth  in  His  former 
declaration  (Mt.  v,  32),  they  would  have  a 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  219 


chance  to  urge  against  Him  the  fateful  objec- 
tion: “Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give 
a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away?  ” By  their 
tempting  first  question:  “ Is  it  lawful  to  put 
away  one’s  wife  for  every  cause?  ” (Mt.  xix,  3) , 
they  secured  from  His  lips  a renewed  denial  of 
the  full  extent  of  that  traditional  lawfulness,  and 
they  forthwith  replied: 

Mt.  xix,  7. 

Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a bill  of 
divorce 

and  to  put  away? 

Thus  viewed  in  the  distinct  light  of  the  con- 
troversy recorded  in  Mt.  v,  31,  32 — that  is,  of  a 
controversy  contemplated  by  Our  Lord’s  adver- 
saries, as  we  saw  in  our  foregoing  chapter — this 
second  question  of  “ Pharisees  ” discloses  to  the 
careful  interpreter  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  the  precise 
object  of  these  opponents  of  Christ.  They  ask 
Him:  “ Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give 
a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away?  ” not  because 
they  have  the  least  doubt  concerning  the  exact 
purpose  of  that  precept,  or  concerning  the  right- 
eousness of  the  conduct  of  the  man  who  carries 
it  out  as  it  is  formulated  by  the  traditional 
saying : 


220  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  y,  81. 

It  was  said  also : 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

Their  precise  object  is  to  urge  against  Jesus,  that 
His  demand  for  a higher  righteousness  than  the 
one  required  by  this  traditional  rule,  instead  of 
fulfilling  the  text  of  Moses  to  its  “ yod  ” or 
“ tittle,’  destroys  the  command  of  Israel’s  law- 
giver to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away, 
when  this  command  is  interpreted  in  agreement 
with  the  purpose  which  Moses  had  manifestly 
intended  when  issuing  it  to  Israel. 

II.  Christ’s  Answer  At  this  point,  two  things  are 
in  Mt.  xix,  8,  9,  clear  to  the  unbiased  inter- 
preter of  Mt.  xix,  3-12.  It  is  clear  to  him,  on 
the  one  hand,  that  if  Moses  has  prescribed  the 
giving  of  a bill  of  divorce  before  putting  away 
one’s  wife,  for  the  purpose  ascribed  to  him  by 
Jewish  traditionalists,  it  is  all  over  with  Jesus’ 
total  rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  as 
fulfilling  the  Deuteronomic  text;  His  demand 
for  a higher  righteousness  when  confronted  with 
that  traditional  purpose  of  Israel’s  lawgiver  must 
be  rejected,  because  it  destroys  the  text  of  Moses’ 
command  by  doing  away  with  its  purpose.  It  is 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  221 


clear  to  the  same  interpreter,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  if  Moses  had  for  his  purpose  in  issuing  his 
decree  concerning  divorce,  to  discountenance  the 
Jewish  practice  of  divorce,  which  he  regarded 
as  a moral  evil,  Jesus’  renewed  total  rejection  of 
the  lawfulness  of  divorce  stands;  it  may  be  vin- 
dicated as  justly  requiring  a righteousness 
higher  than  the  one  enforced  by  the  traditional 
saying  of  His  opponents,  and  may  be  claimed  to 
fulfil  exactly  the  Mosaic  text  construed  in  the 
light  of  its  true  purpose.  With  this  distinctly  in 
mind,  the  impartial  interpreter  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12, 
proceeds  to  examine  Our  Lord’s  answer  to 
“ Pharisees,”  which  is  recorded  in  the  next  two 
verses : 

Mt.  xix. 

8.  He  says  to  them  that 

Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 
allowed  you  to  put  away  your  wives: 
but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 

9.  But  I say  to  you  that 
Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 
commits  adultery, 
and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 
commits  adultery; 

and  he  is  not  long  before  realizing  that  of  the  two 
suppositions  just  made,  the  latter  is  manifestly 


222  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


the  one  in  harmony  with  the  natural  meaning  of 
Christ’s  words. 

As  he  can  readily  see,  the  opening  words  of 
this  answer  bespeak  Jesus’  immediate  concern 
to  reject  the  purpose  which  His  opponents 
regard  as  undoubtedly  that  of  Moses’  command 
to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away. 
Scarcely  have  they  finished  their  objection: 

Mt.  xix. 

7.  Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a bill 
of  divorce 
and  to  put  away? 

when  He  points  out  the  true  purpose  of  Moses 
in  framing  his  decree  concerning  divorce: 

Mt.  xix,  8. 

He  says  to  them  that 

Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 

allowed  you  to  put  away  your  wives. 

As  the  interpreter  can  also  readily  see,  these 
words  of  Christ  bid  “ Pharisees  ” to  admit  for 
Moses’  decree,  the  purpose  of  discountenancing 
the  practice  of  divorce,  which  Israel’s  lawgiver 
regarded  as  morally  wrong.  Jesus  grants  that 
Moses,  legislating  in  full  view  of  the  practice  of 
divorce  among  the  Jews  of  his  time,  did  not 
abolish  it,  as  was  indeed  clear  from  the  fact  that 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  223 


he  had  required  a bill  of  divorce  from  the  man 
who  was  determined  to  put  away  his  wife.  But 
He  emphatically  and  most  rightfully  assigns  to 
the  writer  of  the  Deuteronomic  decree: 

Deut.  xxiv. 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife  and  marrieth  her, 
and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find  no  favor  in  his 
eyes,  because  he  hath  found  in  her  some  indecency, 
that  he  writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 
and  becometh  another  man’s  [wife], 

3.  and  the  latter  man  hateth  her  and  writeth  her 
a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth  [it]  into  her  hand, 
and  putteth  her  out  of  his  house;  or  if  the  latter 
man,  who  took  her  as  his  wife,  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  who  put  her  away  is  not 
allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his  wife,  after  that 
she  is  defiled,  for  this  is  an  abomination  before 
Yahweh,  and  thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land 
which  Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an 
inheritance ; 

a deterring  purpose  lost  sight  of  by  traditional- 
istic “ Pharisees.”  Of  its  very  nature,  the  requir- 
ing of  a bill  of  divorce  was  a curtailment  of  a 
man’s  freedom  in  getting  rid  of  an  unwelcome 
wife.  Besides,  Moses  had  manifestly  meant  to 
make  the  giving  of  that  document  particularly 


224  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


onerous  on  the  dismissing  husband,  in  saying 
that  such  one  should  write  the  bill  of  divorce, 
deliver  it  into  the  hand  of  his  repudiated  wife, 
and  then,  only,  put  her  away.  Again,  Moses’ 
deterring  purpose  in  framing  his  decree  was 
shown  by  the  fact  that  he  warned  expressly  the 
man  who  was  bent  on  sending  away  his  wife,  to 
bear  in  mind  that  once  she  is  supplied  with  this 
written  proof  of  her  regular  and  absolute  dis- 
missal, the  wife  may  henceforth  refuse  to  go 
back  to  him,  and  indeed  will  not  be  free  to  return 
in  the  eventuality  of  a consummated  union  with 
another  man.  Jewish  tradition  notwithstanding, 
Israel’s  lawgiver  had  not  been  prompted  to 
require  a bill  of  divorce,  by  the  desire  of  supply- 
ing the  Jews  with  a simple  and  safe  means  law- 
fully to  sever  the  marriage  tie,  since  dismissal 
for  the  cause  of  fornication  and  with  a bill  of 
divorce  leaves  the  marriage  tie  intact  in  the  eyes 
of  Moses,  who  expressly  qualifies  as  adulterous 
(“after  that  she  is  defiled”)  the  subsequent 
remarriage  of  which  he  speaks.  Moses  had 
really  been  actuated  to  legislate  concerning 
divorce  by  the  purpose  of  discountenancing  its 
practice  as  far  as  this  lay  in  his  powTer.  He  was 
so  opposed  to  this  “ abomination  before  Yah- 
weh,”  that  he  stopped  only  short  of  its  abolition, 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  225 


restricting  its  practice  to  the  case  of  a husband 
who  has  the  cause  of  unfaithfulness  against  his 
wife.  He  was  well  aware  that,  owing  to  the  low 
moral  temper  of  his  people,  all  pleadings  for 
mercy  would  not  prevail  over  the  resentment  of 
any  Jew  in  such  case.  He  had  therefore  allowed 
the  Jews  “for  the  hardness  of  their  heart,  to  put 
away  their  wives,”  and  his  permission  was  no 
approval  of  its  practice,  but  the  barest  toleration 
of  what,  in  framing  his  decree,  he  had  treated  as 
a necessary  evil.  All  this  “ Pharisees  ” could 
easily  realize* when  they  were  told  by  Jesus: 

Mt.  xix,  8. 

Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 

allowed  you  to  put  away  your  wives. 

They  were  thoroughly  familiar  with  all  the  par- 
ticulars of  Moses’  decree  concerning*  divorce,  to 
which  Christ  could  appeal  to  vindicate  the  true 
purpose  of  Israel’s  lawgiver  in  wording  as  he 
had  done,  his  enactment  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4. 
Besides,  they  were  doubtless  acquainted  with  the 
provisions  of  their  oral  law  concerning  the  man 
who  had  made  a vow  to  divorce  his  wife  and 
appealed  to  the  Court  for  the  purpose  of  having 
the  bill  of  divorce  prepared.  It  was  the  urgent 
duty  of  the  judges  to  expostulate  with  that  man, 


226  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 

to  point  out  to  him  all  the  evil  consequences  of 
his  intended  divorce,  and  to  absolve  him  from 
his  vow  as  soon  as  they  had  succeeded  in  securing 
an  expression  of  regret  for  having  made  it.1  It 
was  therefore  plain  to  Christ’s  opponents  that 
Moses  had  never  intended  by  his  decree  to 
declare  lawful  remarriage  after  dismissal  by  a 
simple  bill  of  divorce.  It  was  the  opposite  that 
was  the  truth.  Thence,  they  could  readily  infer 
that  Jesus’  total  rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  was  a just  demand  for  a righteousness 
higher  than  the  one  enforced  by  their  traditional 
rule.  And,  indeed,  Our  Lord’s  additional  words : 

Mt.  xix,  8. 

but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so; 

were  manifestly  meant  by  Him  to  compel  them 
to  draw  this  inference  from  the  true  purpose  of 
Moses’  decree.  The  righteousness  required  by 
God’s  Law: 

Mt.  xix. 

4.  Have  you  not  read  that 

the  Creator  from  the  beginning 

made  them  male  and  female?  5.  And  said: 

On  account  of  this,  a man  shall  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife, 

and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh? 


*Cfr.  Talmud,  treatise  “Nedarim,”  ix,  9. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  227 


was  one  which  never  allowed  the  severing  of  the 
marriage  tie  after  the  consummated  union  of 
husband  and  wife,  as  Jesus  had  distinctly  pro- 
claimed, saying: 


Mt.  xix,  6. 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder. 

It  was  a righteousness  immutably  decreed  by  the 
Creator,  and  which  manifestly  could  not  be 
superseded  by  Moses’  later  decree  concerning 
divorce.  In  fact,  Moses  had  not  framed  that 
decree  for  the  purpose  ascribed  to  him  by  Jewish 
tradition,  viz.,  to  make  it  lawful  for  a man  to 
treat  the  marriage  tie  as  severed  after  a dismissal 
of  his  wife  by  means  of  a bill  of  divorce  given 
for  any  cause.  The  Deuteronomic  lawgiver  had 
intended  to  enforce  again  the  primitive  right- 
eousness willed  by  the  Author  of  Nature  and 
Revelation;  but  he  had  felt  powerless  to  root 
out  the  inveterate  evil  of  divorce,  owing  to  the 
low  moral  temper  of  his  race: 

Mt.  xix,  8. 

Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart, 
allowed  you  to  put  away  your  wives: 
but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 


228  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


The  natural  meaning  of  these  words  of  Jesus  is 
thus  evident  to  the  careful  interpreter  of  Mt. 
xix,  3-12.  In  uttering  them  Christ  forcibly  vin- 
dicates His  total  rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  as  a divinely-required  righteousness, 
which,  although  contrary  to  the  one  enforced  by 
the  traditional  saying  of  the  Elders,  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  text  of  Moses’  decree  concerning 
divorce,  when  this  decree  is  construed  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  true  purpose  of  Israel’s  law- 
giver. If  Jesus’  words  were  understood  at  all 
by  His  opponents,  “ Pharisees  ” hearing  them 
must  have  felt  that  the  decree  in  Deut.  xxiv,  1-4, 
was  really  construed  in  direct  opposition  to  its 
framer’s  purpose,  when  it  was  interpreted  by 
Jewish  tradition  as  allowing  remarriage  after 
dismissal  by  means  of  a bill  of  divorce,  whether 
that  dismissal  had  taken  place  for  the  cause  of 
fornication  or  not.  They  must  have  felt  that 
their  traditional  saying: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce ; 

sets  forth  a wrong  interpretation  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  decree  construed  in  agreement  with  the 
real  purpose  of  Moses.  They  must  have  real- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  229 


ized  that  their  own  covert  contention  that  the 
opposite  declaration  of  Jesus: 

Mt.  v,  32. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery; 

should  have  run,  as  they  had  figured  out,  in  the 
following  manner: 

“ Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
for  fornication  or  not 
and  shall  marry  another 
does  not  commit  adultery, 
and  the  man  who  shall  marry  one  put  away 
does  not  commit  adultery ; ” 

was  likewise  wrong.  And  it  is  the  falsity  of  this 
implied  contention  of  theirs,  which  they  must 
necessarily  recognize  as  proclaimed  by  Jesus 
when  He  authoritatively  completes  His  answer 
to  their  objection,  by  the  following  words: 

Mt.  xix,  9. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery. 


230  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


“ Pharisees  ” can  not  help  realizing  the  exact 
meaning  of  these  concluding  words  of  Christ,  as 
terminating  His  vindication  of  the  absolute 
unlawfulness  of  divorce.  Their  opening  ques- 
tion had  been  prompted  by  the  desire  of  betray- 
ing Him  into  that  total  rejection  of  divorce,  which 
they  knew  to  be  contained  in  His  former 
declaration  : 

Mt.  v,  32. 

But  I say  to  you  that 

Everyone  putting  away  his  wife 

except  because  of  fornication 

makes  her  commit  adultery, 

and  whoever  shall  marry  one  put  away, 

commits  adultery. 

His  renewed  and  emphatic  denial  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  treating  the  marriage  tie  as  severed: 

Mt.  xix,  6. 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 
let  not  man  put  asunder; 

had  given  them  the  chance  they  had  longed  for, 
to  urge  against  Him  that  the  higher  righteous- 
ness which  He  claimed  to  fulfil  the  text  of  Moses 
(Deut.  xxiv,  1-4)  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “tittle,” 
destroyed  Moses’  command  construed  in  strict 
agreement  with  the  purpose  of  Israel’s  lawgiver. 
And  in  His  answer  thereupon,  Jesus  told  them 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  231 

that  since  they  were  mistaken  concerning  the  true 
purpose  of  Moses’  decree,  He  had  the  right  to 
insist  that  His  former  declaration  (Mt.  v,  32), 
was  one  which  could  be  shown  to  fulfil  Moses’ 
text  to  its  “ yod  ” or  “ tittle.”  As  well  as  they, 
He  knew  how  that  declaration  was  to  be  modified 
to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  the  purpose 
ascribed  to  Moses  by  the  traditional  saying: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

He  knew  that  to  he  correct  in  their  eyes  His 
former  declaration  had  to  be  made  to  run  as 
follows: 

“ Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
for  fornication  or  not 
and  shall  marry  another 
does  not  commit  adultery, 
and  the  man  who  shall  marry  one  put  away, 
does  not  commit  adultery.” 

But  in  virtue  of  His  proof  (Mt.  xix,  8),  that 
Moses  had  for  his  real  purpose  one  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  purpose  which  “ Pharisees  ” 
assumed  as  correct  in  their  objection,  Jesus  had 
to  make  His  former  declaration  run  to  the  very 
opposite  effect,  and  to  declare  to  His  adver- 


saries : 


232  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Mt.  xix. 

9.  But  I say  to  you  that 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery. 

Moses  had  tolerated  divorce,  it  is  true.  But  the 
plain  wording  of  his  decree  showed  that  his  pur- 
pose was  to  discountenance  its  practice  in  Israel; 
that  he  had  required  the  cause  of  fornication  for 
the  dismissal  of  one’s  wife,  and  that  this  cause 
made  indeed  lawful  a separation  of  husband  and 
wife,  but  not  the  remarriage  of  either  party 
concerned. 

III.  Principal  Diffi-  That  this  is  the  natural  mean- 
culties  Disposed  of.  i ng  of  Our  Lord’s  answer  to 
His  opponents  in  Mt.  xix,  8,  9,  is  therefore  clear 
in  the  light  of  the  whole  preceding  context,  to 
the  careful  examiner  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12.  He 
knows,  indeed,  that  many  Protestant  inter- 
preters maintain  that  in  Mt.  xix,  9,  J esus  allowed 
divorce  for  the  sole  cause  of  fornication.  But 
he  can  not  help  regarding  such  view  as  decidedly 
false.  This  view  is  manifestly  contrary  to 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  233 


Christ’s  fully-ascertained  intention  to  reject 
divorce  absolutely  as  prohibited  by  God’s  will 
in  two  texts  of  Genesis  (i,  27;  ii,  24),  an  inten- 
tion expressly  declared  in  Mt.  xix,  6: 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 

let  not  man  put  asunder; 

and  reasserted  by  the  words,  “But  from  the 
beginning  it  was  not  so,”  which  conclude  Our 
Lord’s  proof  that  Moses  in  his  decree  tolerated 
the  practice  of  divorce  in  Israel,  solely  because 
of  the  hardness  of  the  Jewish  heart  (Mt.  xix,  8) . 
To  admit  such  view,  then,  would  be  to  admit  that 
St.  Matthew  represents  Christ  as  inconsistent 
with  Himself,  as  at  first  rejecting  divorce 
because  absolutely  opposed  to  God’s  will,  and 
as  next  declaring  it  lawful  for  one  cause,  that  of 
fornication.1 

The  same  careful  interpreter  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12, 
knows  likewise  that  attempts  have  been  made 
to  remove  such  inconsistency  from  St.  Matthew’s 
passage  in  two  several  directions.  The  first 
attempt  is  that  of  several  Protestant  scholars 

1 Strangely  enough,  this  supposed  inconsistency  of  St.  Mat- 
thew’s representation  of  Jesus’  controversy  with  “Pharisees”  in 
Mt.  xix,  3-12,  is  admitted  by  as  careful  a commentator  as  W.  C. 
Allen  (on  St.  Matthew,  p.  201  sq.  New  York,  1907.) 


234  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


who  maintain  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  con- 
troversy (Mt.  xix,  3)  Jesus  was  asked  to  pro- 
nounce Himself  between  the  schools  of  Shammai 
and  Hillel,  between  admitting  divorce  for  only 
one  cause  and  admitting  it  for  any  cause,  and 
that  He  pronounced  Himself  in  favor  of  the  law- 
fulness of  divorce  for  only  one  cause,  the  clause, 
“ unless  for  fornication,”  in  Mt.  xix,  9,  setting 
forth  “ the  unica  and  cidcequata  eocceptio  to  the 
law  against  divorce,  because  adultery  destroys 
what,  according  to  its  original  institution  by  God, 
constitutes  the  very  essence  of  marriage,  the 
unitas  carnis  1 But  this  attempt  at  showing 
Our  Lord’s  consistency  in  His  controversy  with 
“ Pharisees,”  while  admitting  that  He  allowed 
divorce  for  the  sole  cause  of  adultery,  can  not 
be  regarded  as  successful  by  the  impartial  exam- 
iner of  Mt.  xix,  3-12.  As  he  has  already  seen  in 
studying  this  passage  of  our  first  Gospel,  what 
Jesus  was  asked  by  “ Pharisees  ” when  they  put 
their  “tempting”  first  question: 

Mt.  xix,  3. 

Is  it  lawful  to  put  away  one’s  wife 

for  every  cause? 

1 H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  “ Critical  and  Exegetical  Handbook  to  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  trans.,  p.  339  (Funk  & Wagnalls,  New 
York,  1884). 


CHRIST'S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  235 


was,  not  if  He  admitted  the  lawfulness  of  divorce 
for  only  one  cause  or  for  any  cause,  as  this  was 
discussed  by  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel, 
but  if  He  admitted  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  at 
all.  To  think  with  these  Protestant  critics,  that 
this  question  was  worded  in  direct  view  of  the 
controversy  between  the  disciples  of  Shammai 
and  those  of  Hillel,  is  to  make  Our  Lord  return 
to  His  questioners  an  answer  which  was  not  to 
the  point,1  inasmuch  as  He  emphatically  declares 
that,  on  the  basis  of  two  texts  of  the  Law,  the 
lawfulness  of  divorce  must  be  absolutely 
re j ected : 

Mt.  xix,  6. 

What  therefore  God  has  joined  together 

let  not  man  put  asunder. 

And  yet  this  answer  was,  according  to  St.  Mat- 
thew, truly  to  the  point,  since  he  expressly  gives  it 
as  an  answer  of  Jesus  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
question  of  Christ’s  adversaries : But  He  an- 

swering, said  ...”  (Mt.  xix,  4).  Thence,  it  is 
clear  to  the  examiner  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  that  the 
assumption  of  those  Protestant  critics  is  contrary 
to  the  well-ascertained  fact  that  Jesus  had  not 

1This  is  distinctly,  but  wrongly,  admitted  by  A.  Loisy,  “ les 
Evangiles  Synoptiques,”  vol.  ii,  p.  200  (Ceffonds,  1908). 


236  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 

to  pronounce  Himself  about  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  for  only  one  cause  or  for  several  causes. 
Undoubtedly,  then,  their  view  that  Jesus  pro- 
nounced Himself  in  Mt.  xix,  9,  in  favor  of  the 
lawfulness  of  divorce  for  only  one  cause,  viz., 
that  of  adultery,  rests  on  a false  assumption. 
Besides,  whoever  examines  attentively  Christ’s 
final  pronouncement : 

Mt.  xix,  9. 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery; 

can  easily  realize  that  these  words  of  Christ  con- 
tain a positive  rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of 
divorce  for  any  cause.  This  pronouncement 
affirms  absolutely  that  “ he,  one  put  away  marry- 
ing, commits  adultery,”  an  affirmation  which  can 
not  be  rightly  construed  otherwise  than  as  declar- 
ing that  no  dismissed  wife  can  remarry  without 
incurring  the  guilt  of  adultery  together  with  the 
man  who  marries  her;  as  declaring,  therefore, 
that  in  no  case  of  dismissal — the  cause  be  what 
it  may — the  marriage  tie  may  lawfully  be  treated 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  237 


as  severed.1  Finally,  as  is  well  said  by  a Protes- 
tant writer:  “ The  doctrine  that  adultery  of 
itself  and  in  its  own  nature  is  a virtual  dissolution 
of  the  bond  of  marriage  is  not  authorized  by  a 
just  exposition  of  the  Scriptures:  it  is  opposed  to 
the  received  law  and  practice  of  the  courts,  and 
it  involves  the  most  fearful  consequences  and  the 
most  striking  inconsistency.  It  precludes  the 
possibility  of  reconciliation;  it  renders  repent- 
ance unavailing  and  forgiveness  impracticable: 
it  takes  away  all  distinction  between  the  boldness 
which  triumphs  in  vice,  and  the  returning  sense 
of  propriety  which  would  make  every  atonement 
for  the  offence;  between  the  exasperated  spirit 
which  spurns  the  offender  and  hurries  to  its 
revenge,  and  the  compassionate  forbearance 
which  in  remembrance  of  former  affection  waits 

1 It  is  true  that  several  textual  critics  reject  the  last  part  of 
Mt.  xix,  9 (“  and  he,  one  put  away  marrying,  commits  adultery”), 
regarding  it  as  an  assimilation  to  Mt.  v,  32.  But  Meyer  (loc.  cit., 
p.  335)  rightly  says  that  there  is  preponderating  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  genuineness  of  these  last  words  of  Christ’s  answer 
to  His  opponents,  as  the  omceteleuton  might  easily  enough  be  the 
occasion  of  their  omission.  Their  presence  in  Tatian’s  Diatessaron 
is  a particularly  strong  argument  in  favor  of  that  genuineness. 
Besides,  their  supposed  later  insertion  in  Mt.  xix,  9,  could  not  be 
accounted  for  by  an  assimilation,  because  of  the  differences  in 
wording  noticeable  between  Mt.  xix,  9,  and  Mt.  v,  32.  We  have 
seen,  also,  that  a thorough  examination  of  Our  Lord’s  answer 
(Mt.  xix,  8,  9)  to  “ Pharisees,”  requires  the  genuineness  of  these 
words  of  Jesus,  in  view  of  the  exact  meaning  of  the  second  ques" 
tion  of  His  opponents. 


238  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 

in  patient  hope  for  the  effects  of  penitence  and 
contrition.  If  the  bond  of  marriage  is  broken 
by  the  adulterous  act,  there  are  no  means  by 
which  it  can  be  renewed  or  repaired;  nor  any 
principle  upon  which  the  continued  intercourse 
of  the  parties  can  be  justified  or  approved.  It 
would  convey  to  either  party  a power,  and  offer 
a temptation,  to  dissolve  a union  which  may  be 
disagreeable;  and  to  seek  an  engagement  which 
promises  more  happiness,  by  an  act  of  sin;  and 
allow  the  guilty  to  take  advantage  of  his  own 
wrong:  and  if  a restriction  should  be  £>laced 
upon  the  criminal  party,  for  which,  if  the  bond 
of  marriage  is  dissolved  by  the  offence,  there  is 
no  pretext,  it  would  leave  the  same  obligation  in 
force  upon  the  one  party  and  not  upon  the  other; 
it  would  take  from  the  guilty  the  very  name  of 
marriage,  and  give  to  the  innocent  a license  of 
bigamy.”  1 

The  second  attempt  at  removing  a supposed 
inconsistency  on  Our  Lord’s  part  in  Mt.  xix, 
3-12,  is  indeed  more  drastic,  but  no  less  false  than 
the  one  just  disproved.  A few  Catholic  and 
Protestant  scholars  have  imagined  that  the 
words,  “ unless  for  fornication,”  in  Mt.  xix,  9, 

1 H.  D.  Morgan,  “ The  Doctrine  and  Laic  of  Marriage,  Adul- 
tery, and  Divorce,”  vol.  ii,  p.  19  sq.  (Oxford,  1826). 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  239 


are  a later  interpolation,  an  addition  due  to 
assimilation  with  the  parallel  clause,  “ except 
because  of  fornication,”  in  Mt.  v,  32,  and  allow- 
ing divorce  for  that  one  cause  in  the  mind  of  the 
one  who  introduced  those  words  into  St.  Mat- 
thew’s primitive  text.  According  to  such  schol- 
ars, Christ’s  final  pronouncement  originally  read 
in  Mt.  xix,  9 : 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
and  shall  marry  another 
commits  adultery, 
and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 
commits  adultery ; 

and  rejected  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  as 
explicitly  by  these  words,  as  in  His  preceding 
answer : 

“What  God  has  joined  together 
let  not  man  put  asunder.” 

But  this  view  tampers  as  wrongly  as  uselessly 
with  the  text  of  St.  Matthew,  the  primitive  read- 
ing of  which  was  undoubtedly: 

Mt.  xix,  9. 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 

and  shall  marry  another 

commits  adultery, 

and  he,  one  put  away  marrying, 

commits  adultery. 


240  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


The  textual  emendation  which  is  suggested  by 
these  scholars  is  justly  rejected  by  all  prominent 
textual  critics  (Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort, 
B.  Weiss,  Nestle,  etc.),  for  it  has  only  in  its 
favor  the  omission  of  the  words,  m ini  nopvRa,  by 
Tertullian  (who  renders  freely  the  passage  of 
St.  Matthew),  Athenagoras,  and  possibly  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria.  And  the  careful  examiner 
of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  knows  full  well  that  the  pres- 
ence of  the  clause,  “ unless  for  fornication,”  in 
Alt.  xix,  9,  is  required  by  the  whole  drift  of 
Christ’s  controversy  with  “ Pharisees  ” in  Mt. 
xix,  3-12,  and  in  no  way  makes  Our  Lord  affirm 
the  lawfulness  of  divorce  for  the  cause  of  forni- 
cation. 

All  objections  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing, the  second  part  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  which  con- 
tains the  words,  “ unless  for  fornication,” 
ascribes  to  Jesus  the  same  total  rejection  of  the 
lawfulness  of  remarriage  after  separation,  as  has 
ever  been  proclaimed  by  the  traditional  teaching 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 


CHAPTER  IX 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 
IN  THIRD  PART  OF  MT.  XIX,  3-12 

Celibacy,  a State  Preferable  to  Marriage 

1.  The  Disciples’ Re-  TjMiom  the  foregoing  exam- 
mark  in  Mt.  xix,  10.  JJ  ination  of  the  first  two 
parts  of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  it  is  evident  to  the  careful 
interpreter  of  this  passage  of  our  first  Gospel 
that,  in  virtue  of  the  whole  preceding  context, 
Our  Lord’s  final  answer  to  His  adversaries  (Mt. 
xix,  9)  must  not  be  taken  as  allowing  divorce 
for  the  cause  of  adultery.  In  view  of  this  the 
same  interpreter  naturally  expects  that  this  con- 
clusion of  his  will  also  be  in  distinct  harmony 
with  the  immediately  following  context.  And, 
in  point  of  fact,  the  more  closely  he  examines  the 
remark  of  Christ’s  disciples  in  the  very  next 
verse : 

Mt.  xix. 

10.  The  disciples  say  to  Him: 

If  so  be  the  case  of  the  man  with  the  wife 
it  is  not  expedient  to  marry; 


241 


242  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


the  more  clearly  he  sees  that  this  is  actually  so. 
Obviously,  this  remark  does  not  read  like  that 
of  men  who  have  understood  their  Master  to 
declare  that  remarriage  is  allowed  for  only  one 
cause.  Such  declaration  had  been  made  by  Sham- 
mai,  and  the  followers  of  that  illustrious  Rabbi 
submitted  to  his  view,  without  the  difficulty  which 
these  words  disclose  on  the  part  of  Christ’s  disci- 
ples. Besides,  it  would  surely  be  unreasonable 
for  Jesus’  disciples  to  say  that  “it  is  not  expedient 
to  marry,”  unless  a man  has  the  power  of  unlim- 
ited divorce.  Their  words  manifestly  imply  a 
comparison  between  two  states  of  life,  lawfully 
open  to  man;  that  of  celibacy  and  that  of  mar- 
riage. To  their  mind  celibacy  has  indeed  its  in- 
herent trials  and  difficulties,  but  is,  after  all,  an 
easier  state  than  that  of  marriage  with  its  addi- 
tional burdens  and  responsibilities  declared  life- 
long by  Jesus.  The  disciples’  practical  instinct, 
characteristic  of  their  race,  makes  them  therefore 
exclaim : 

Mt.  xix,  10. 

If  so  be  the  case  of  a man  with  the  wife 

it  is  not  expedient  to  marry. 

They  argue  that  if  Christ’s  doctrine  concerning 
divorce  were  to  hold  good,  marriage  would  be  a 
burden  better  left  alone.  This  they  do,  plainly 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  243 


because  they  have  understood  their  Master  to 
rule  out  the  lawfulness  of  marriage  after  dis- 
missal even  for  the  cause  of  fornication.  Whence, 
it  is  clear  to  the  impartial  interpreter  -of  Mt.  xix, 
3-12,  that  the  meaning  which  he  has  ascribed  to 
Jesus’  final  pronouncement  concerning  divorce  in 
Mt.  xix,  9,  is  one  which  could  readily  be,  and  was 
in  fact,  understood  by  those  present  at  Our 
Lord’s  controversy  with  His  Pharisaic  oppo- 
nents. Whence,  also,  it  is  clear  to  him  that  our 
first  Evangelist  by  recording  this  remark  of  the 
disciples  in  direct  connection  with  Christ’s  final 
pronouncement  concerning  divorce,  “The  disci- 
ples say  to  Him  ” (Mt.  xix,  10a),  regarded  the 
words  of  the  disciples  as  appropriately  directed 
by  them  against  the  total  rejection  of  the  law- 
fulness of  divorce  by  their  Master  which  they 
suppose.  In  view,  then,  of  the  immediately  fol- 
lowing, as  well  as  of  the  whole  preceding,  con- 
text, it  is  undoubted  to  the  careful  examiner  of 
Mt.  xix,  3-12,  that  Jesus  is  represented,  in  this 
passage  of  our  first  Gospel,  as  condemning  under 
the  penalty  of  adultery  the  remarriage  of  both 
husband  and  wife,  subsequent  to  their  separation 
after  the  consummation  of  marriage,  that  is  to 
say,  as  holding  the  same  doctrine  as  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  down  to  the  present  day. 


244  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


11.  Christ’s  Answer  But,  in  the  passage  now  under 
in  Mt.  xix,  11,  12.  consideration,  there  is  not  only 
an  immediately,  but  also  a remotely,  following 
context,  by  means  of  which  the  interpreter  of  Mt. 
xix,  3-12,  may  test  his  admission  of  Christ’s  total 
rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce.  This  re- 
mote following  context  is  made  up  of  the  last 
two  verses  in  the  present  section  of  our  first 
Gospel : 

Mt.  xix. 

If.  But  He  said  to  them: 

All  do  not  receive  this  saying, 
but  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 

12.  For  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  so  born  from  their 

mother’s  womb; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  made  eunuchs  by 
men ; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  made  themselves 
eunuchs  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

He  who  can  receive  [it],  let  him  receive  [it]. 

It  behooves  all  the  more  the  interpreter  of  Mt. 
3-12,  to  examine  carefully  these  last  two  verses, 
because  they  are  manifestly  presented  by  St. 
Matthew  as  an  answer  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples’ 
remark,  “ But  He  said  to  them”  and  as  an 
answer  in  opposition  to  that  remark,  But  He 
said  to  them.”  The  question  which  naturally  sug- 


CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  245 


gests  itself  to  the  interpreter’s  mind  is  this: 
Does  the  opposition  of  Jesus’  answer,  which  is 
denoted  by  the  Evangelist’s  introductory  words, 
“But  He  said  to  them,”  bear  on  something 
affirmed  indeed  by  the  disciples,  but  the  rejec- 
tion of  which  by  Jesus,  instead  of  destroying, 
confirms  their  understanding  of  His  doctrine 
concerning  divorce? 

With  this  distinctly  in  mind,  the  interpreter  of 
Mt.  xiv,  3-12,  can  readily  see  that  the  opposition 
contemplated  by  St.  Matthew  in  xix,  11-12,  re- 
fers directly  and  solely  to  the  low  views  of  the 
disciples  when  pronouncing  celibacy  preferable  to 
the  marriage  state.  They  have  been  prompted 
to  say  to  Jesus: 

Mt.  xix,  10. 

If  so  be  the  case  of  a man  with  the  wife 

it  is  not  expedient  to  marry; 

on  account  of  selfish  considerations.  Viewed 
from  the  standpoint  of  a man’s  personal  comfort, 
freedom  of  additional  cares  and  responsibilities, 
indissoluble  marriage  appears  to  them  a burden 
heavier  than  celibacy.  In  His  reply  Jesus  accepts 
the  remark  of  the  disciples,  but  gives  it  a new  and 
higher  meaning.  It  is  better  not  to  marry  at  all, 
but  not  for  the  sordid  reason  of  convenience  ad- 
mitted by  the  disciples.  The  “ saying  ” which 


246  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


not  all  comprehend  so  as  to  act  upon  it,1  is  that 
contained  in  the  interjection  of  those  same  dis- 
ciples: viz.,  ov  (Tv^ipu  yawvcu,  “it  is  better  not 
marry,”  “ it  is  not  expedient  to  marry.”  Those 
only  comprehend  “ this  saying  ” as  it  ought  to  be 
admitted,  who  are  enlightened  from  above  and 
act  upon  higher  motives : 1 

Mt.  xix,  11. 

All  do  not  receive  this  saying, 
but  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 

To  embrace  celibacy  out  of  regard  for  oneself 
would  not  be  any  more  meritorious  than  is  the 
necessary  abstention  from  marriage  on  the  part 
of  physical  eunuchs  horn  so,  or  made  such  in 
later  life: 2 

Mt.  xix,  12. 

For  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  so  born  from  their 
mother’s  womb ; 

and  there  are  eunuchs  who  were  made  eunuchs  by 
men. 

To  embrace  celibacy  in  a meritorious  manner,  one 
must  give  up  altogether  the  married  state,  law- 
fully open  to  him  though  it  be,  “ for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven” : 

1 Cfr.  Knabenbauer,  S.J.,  “In  Matthceum,”  vol.  ii,  p.  146 
(Paris,  1893). 

2 The  same  two  classes  of  physical  eunuchs  are  mentioned  in 
the  Talmud,  treatise  “ Yebamoth,”  viii,  4. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  247 


and  there  are  eunuchs  who  made  themselves 
eunuchs  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven; 

co  advance  God’s  kingdom  on  earth,  to  attend 
more  freely  to  heavenly  tilings,  etc.1  Thus  freely 
to  establish  an  insuperable  barrier  to  the  married 
state  for  the  sake  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  will 
always  appeal  effectively  to  the  mind  and  will  of 
only  a few  in  the  world;  yet  it  is  to  embrace  a 
state  higher  than  that  of  marriage,  and  this  is 
why  Jesus  concludes  His  answer  to  the  disciples 
by  the  significant  words : 

He  who  can  receive  [it],  let  him  receive  [it]. 

It  is,  therefore,  clear  to  the  interpreter  of 
Christ’s  answer  to  the  disciples,  recorded  in  Mt. 
xix,  11,  12,  that  the  opposition  contemplated  by 
St.  Matthew  is  one  which  leaves  perfectly  intact 
their  understanding  of  Our  Lord’s  foregoing 
answer  to  “ Pharisees,”  as  condemning  all  remar- 
riage after  dismissal,  under  the  penalty  of  adul- 
tery. And  yet,  it  is  no  less  clear  to  the  same  in- 
terpreter that  had  the  disciples  misunderstood 

1 The  idea  of  cohabitation  being  excluded  for  a time  by  relig- 
ious exercises  was  found  among  the  Jews  (Exod.  xix,  15;  I Kings 
[Samuel]  xxi,  4),  and  the  example  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of 
Jesus  Himself  was  well  known  to  the  disciples,  so  that  the  same 
disciples  could  easily  understand  what  Christ  meant  when  He 
declared,  “ and  there  are  eunuchs  who  made  themselves  eunuchs 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 


248  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


their  Master’s  declaration  concerning  divorce,  the 
opposition  to  their  remark,  which  should  be  found 
set  forth  on  Jesus’  lips  in  Mt.  xix,  11,  12,  is  that 
the  disciples  had  wrongly  thought  Him  to  reject 
the  lawfulness  of  divorce  for  every  cause.  The 
true  doctrine  concerning  divorce  was  of  para- 
mount importance  in  the  eyes  of  Christ  and  of 
our  first  Evangelist.  Since  then,  the  words  of 
Jesus  do  not  find  fault  with  the  view  which  the 
disciples  have  taken  of  His  doctrine,  it  is  evident 
that  it  is  because  their  apprehension  of  His  total 
rejection  of  the  lawfulness  of  divorce  is  abso- 
lutely correct. 

III.  General  Conclusions  The  following  are  the 
from  Mt.  xix,  3-12.  principal  conclusions  sug- 
gested by  the  examination  of  the  second  passage 
of  our  first  Gospel,  which  sets  forth  Our  Lord’s 
doctrine  concerning  divorce.  This  second  pas- 
sage, in  St.  Matthew’s  mind,  distinctly  points 
back  to  the  discussion  between  Jesus  and  “ Phari- 
sees,” in  his  earlier  passage  (Mt.  v,  31-32).  In 
both  these  passages  our  first  Synoptic  writer  re- 
gards Christ  as  charged  by  His  opponents  with 
destroying  the  text  of  the  Deuteronomic  decree, 
because  He  proclaims  a higher  righteousness 
than  the  one  secured  by  a man’s  compliance  with 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  249 


the  traditional  saying  of  the  Elders  (Mt.  v,  31). 
In  the  second  passage  (Mt.  xix,  3-12)  the  charge 
is  again  preferred  against  Jesus  with  a view  to 
disprove  the  correctness  of  His  former  interpre- 
tation of  the  Mosaic  Law,  embodied  in  His  dec- 
laration in  Mt.  v,  32:  this  former  declaration  of 
His  does  not  admit  the  lawfulness  of  remarriage 
after  dismissal  even  for  the  cause  of  fornication ; 
how  then  can  it  fulfil  the  text  of  Moses  which 
allows  divorce  “ for  every  cause?”  In  the  second 
passage,  this  same  total  rejection  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  divorce  for  any  cause  is  maintained,  and 
is,  indeed,  more  emphatically  declared  as  a Divine 
requirement : 

Mt.  xix,  6. 

What  God  has  joined  together 

let  not  man  put  asunder. 

In  the  second  passage,  the  condemnation  of  re- 
marriage after  dismissal  is  made  more  explicit 
by  Christ’s  distinct  assertion  that  both  the  dis- 
missing husband  who  attempts  a second  marriage, 
and  the  man  who  marries  one  put  away,  commit 
adultery.  In  the  latter  passage,  finally,  the 
clause,  “ unless  for  fornication,”  is  not  given  as 
a ground  for  divorce,  for  this  would  be  contrary 
to  the  whole  drift  of  the  Evangelist’s  account 


250  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


of  Our  Lord’s  discussion  with  “ Pharisees  ” con- 
cerning divorce;  it  would  be  contrary  not  only 
to  the  entire  preceding,  but  also  to  the  entire  fol- 
lowing, context.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  to  the 
interpreter,  that  when  this  second  passage  of  St. 
Matthew’s  Gospel  is  impartially  and  thoroughly 
examined,  it  is  found  to  ascribe  to  Jesus  the  very 
same  total  rejection  of  divorce  as  is  set  forth  in 
the  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  and  as 
is  affirmed  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  down 
to  the  present  day. 

The  following  Appendices  are  subjoined  as 
subsidiary  studies  to  the  examination  of  Our 
Lord’s  Teaching  concerning  divorce.  The  first 
Appendix  shows  that  St.  Matthew’s  second  pas- 
sage (Mt.  xix,  3-12)  is  in  thorough  harmony  with 
the  parallel  passage  of  our  second  Evangelist 
(Mk.  x,  2-12).  The  second  Appendix  proves 
that  Moses’  decree  in  Deuteronomy  xxiv,  1-4,  is 
to  be  understood  as  it  is  actually  interpreted  by 
Jesus,  over  against  the  Jewish  interpretation  of 
the  same. 


APPENDIX  I 


HARMONY  OF  MT.  XIX,  3-12,  WITH  MK.  X,  2-12 


As  stated  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  chapter, 
this  first  Appendix  has  for  its  object  to  show 
the  thorough  harmony  in  which  Mt.  xix,  3-12, 
taken  in  its  ordinary  and  unaltered  form,  stands 
with  the  parallel  passage  in  our  second  Gospel 
(Mk.  x,  2-12).  Such  harmony  can  easily  be 
realized  with  regard  to  the  opening  verse  in  these 
respective  passages  of  our  first  two  Gospels : 


Mt.  xix,  3. 

And  Pharisees  approached 
Him 

tempting  Him  and  saying : 
Is  it  lawful  to  put  away 
one’s  wife 
for  every  cause? 


Mk.  x,  2. 

And  Pharisees  having  ap- 
proached 
asked  Him: 

Is  it  lawful  for  a man  to 
put  away  a wife? 
tempting  Him. 


Although  the  wording  of  St.  Matthew  runs 
more  smoothly,  on  account  of  its  inversion  of  the 
words  “ tempting  Him,”  than  that  of  St.  Mark, 

it  is  plain  that  St.  Matthew’s  opening  verse  coin- 

251 


252  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


cides  exactly  in  thought  with  St.  Mark’s  parallel 
opening  verse.  In  both  evangelical  records 
Jesus  is  approached  by  “ Pharisees.”  In  both, 
these  opponents  of  Christ  are  aware  that  He  has 
already  declared  Himself  against  the  traditional 
lawfulness  of  divorce,  and  they  wish  to  betray 
Him  into  a new  public  declaration  of  its  rejec- 
tion, with  which  they  may  find  fault.  This  tra- 
ditional lawfulness  is,  of  course,  to  the  effect 
that,  according  to  the  Mosaic  decree,  a man  may 
put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause,  so  as  to  sever 
the  marriage  tie,  and  their  question  in  St.  Mat- 
thew simply  states  more  explicitly  what  the  same 
“ tempting  ” question  in  St.  Mark  leaves  to 
understand  on  the  part  of  traditionalistic  “ Phari- 
sees.” 

The  remainder  of  the  parallel  passages  in  St. 
Matthew’s  and  St.  Mark’s  records  presents  in- 
deed more  numerous  and  considerable  inversions 
and  variations: 


Mt.  xix. 

4.  B u t He  answering 
said : Have  you  not 
read  that 

the  Creator  from  the 
beginning 

made  them  male  and 


Mk.  x. 

3.  But  He  answering, 

said  to  them: 

What  did  Moses  com- 
mand you? 

4.  But  they  said: 

Moses  allowed  to  write 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  253 


female?  5.  and 
said: 

On  account  of  this  a 
man  shall  leave  his 
father  and  his 
mother, 

and  shall  cleave  to  his 
wife, 

and  the  two  shall  be- 
come one  flesh ; 

6.  So  that  they  are  no 

longer  two,  but  one 
flesh. 

What  therefore  God 
has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put 
asunder. 

7.  They  say  to  Him: 
Why  then  did  Moses 

command  to  give  a 
bill  of  divorce 
and  to  put  away? 

8.  He  says  to  them  that 
Moses  for  your  hard- 
ness of  heart 

allowed  you  to  put 
away  your  wives : 
but  from  the  begin- 
ning it  was  not  so. 

9.  But  I say  to  you  that 
Whoever  shall  put 

away  his  wife 
unless  for  fornication 


a bill  of  divorce 
and  to  put  away. 

5.  But  Jesus  said  to 

them : 

For  your  hardness  of 
heart 

he  wrote  you  this  com- 
mandment. 

6.  But  from  the  begin- 

ning of  creation, 
male  and  female  he 
made  them. 

7.  On  account  of  this  a 

man  shall  leave  his 
father  and  mother, 
and  shall  cleave  to  his 
wife, 

8.  and  the  two  shall  be- 

come one  flesh; 
so  that  they  are  no 
longer  two,  but  one 
flesh. 

9.  What  therefore  God 

has  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put 
asunder. 

10.  And  in  the  house 

again  the  disciples 
asked  Him 
concerning  this. 

11.  And  He  says  to  them: 
Whoever  shall  put 

away  his  wife 


254  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


and  shall  marry  an- 


and  shall  marry  an- 
other, 


other 

commits  adultery, 
and  he,  one  put  away 


commits  adultery 
against  her; 


marrying, 
commits  adultery. 


12.  and  if  she,  having  put 


away  her  husband, 


10.  The  disciples  say  to 


shall  marry  another, 


Him: 


commits  adultery. 


If  so  be  the  case  of  the 
man  with  the  wife 
it  is  not  expedient  to 
marry ; etc. 

Yet,  all  such  inversions  and  variations  are 
found,  when  closely  examined,  to  leave  intact  the 
harmony  between  the  two  Evangelists. 

It  can  readily  be  seen  that  St.  Matthew’s 
account  has  the  same  component  elements  as 
appear  in  St.  Mark’s  record.  In  both  Gospels 
Jesus  answers  the  question  of  “ Pharisees  ” by  a 
question;  in  both,  the  same  passages  of  the  writ- 
ten Law  are  appealed  to  by  Our  Lord,  and  ex- 
actly the  same  inference  as  to  the  absolute  unlaw- 
fulness of  divorce  is  drawn  by  Jesus:  “What 
therefore  God  has  joined  together  let  not  man 
put  asunder”  (Mt.  xix,  4-6;  Mk.  x,  6-9);  in 
both  again,  the  same  purpose  of  Moses  in  fram- 
ing his  decree  concerning  divorce  (“For  your 
hardness  of  heart”),  is  affirmed  against  the  ad- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  255 


verse  contention  of  “Pharisees”  (Mt.  xix,  8; 
Mk.  x,  5)  ; in  both,  likewise,  the  same  penalty  of 
adultery  is  directed  against  remarriage  after  dis- 
missal (Mt.  xix,  9;  Mk.  x,  11)  ; and,  in  both, 
the  disciples  receive  from  their  Master  an  answer 
confirmatory  of  the  manner  in  which  they  have 
understood  His  pronouncement  to  “ Pharisees  ” 
against  divorce  (Mt.  xix,  10-12;  Mk.  x,  10-12). 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  several  of  these  contents 
common  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  appear  in 
a different  order  and  with  variations  in  presen- 
tation; for  all  that,  however,  they  are  given  by 
both  Evangelists  in  a deep  harmony  which  can 
still  be  pointed  out.  At  first  sight,  the  question 
put  on  Our  Lord’s  lips  by  St.  Matthew  (“  Have 
you  not  read,”  etc.)  appears  very  different  from 
the  one  recorded  by  St.  Mark  (“  What  did  Moses 
command  you?”) . Yet,  on  a closer  inspection,  it 
is  easy  to  see  that  in  spite  of  the  actual  difference 
in  the  words  they  ascribe  to  Christ,  both  Evan- 
gelists agree  in  their  representation  of  His  frame 
of  mind,  when  replying  to  His  opponents’  ques- 
tion by  a question;  in  both  records  the  words  of 
Jesus  show  that  He  knows  the  exact  object  of 
the  “tempting”  question  of  His  inquirers  (the 
object  of  setting  Him  at  variance  with  the  text  of 
Moses’  decree  as  understood  by  Jewish  tradi- 


256  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


tion),  and  that  He  wishes  to  meet  this  point 
directly,  only  after  the  same  inquirers  have  come 
into  the  open.  Moreover,  the  passages  of  Gene- 
sis (i,  27;  ii,  24) , given  immediately  by  St.  Mat- 
thew (xix,  4,  5),  and  only  later  by  St.  Mark  (x, 
6-8),  are  precisely  used  to  the  same  purpose:  in 
both  the  evangelical  records  these  passages  are 
adduced  by  Jesus  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
that  when  He  requires  a higher  righteousness 
than  that  which  is  admitted  by  “ Pharisees  ” in 
virtue  of  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the 
Mosaic  decree  concerning  divorce,  He  is  simply 
proclaiming  the  divinely-required  righteousness 
of  the  written  Law  itself. 

It  is  plain  to  any  one,  that  the  clause,  “ And 
said,”  which  is  peculiar  to  St.  Matthew  (xix,  5), 
simply  presents  explicitly  what  the  quotation  of 
the  second  text  of  Genesis  by  St.  Mark  (x,  7) 
contains  implicitly:  in  this  second  passage  of 
Genesis  there  is  a direct  expression  of  God’s  will 
that,  after  the  consummation  of  marriage,  hus- 
band and  wife  shall  form  an  unbreakable  unit. 
Again,  the  question  of  “ Pharisees  ” in  Mt.  xix, 
7:  “ Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a 
bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away?”  is  in  actual 
harmony  with  their  words  in  Mk.  x,  4 : “ Moses 
allowed  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away.” 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  257 


According  to  “ Pharisees,”  the  man’s  action  is 
lawful  (“  allowed  ”)  only  because  the  dismissing 
husband  complies  with  a “ command  ” of  Moses 
to  supply  his  wife  with  a bill  of  divorce  (Cfr.  Mk. 
x,  5:  “he  wrote  you  this  commandment ”) . Be- 
sides, the  declaration  in  Mt.  xix,  7 : Why  then 

did  Moses  command  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and 
to  put  away?”  states  only  more  explicitly  the 
opposition  which  Christ’s  adversaries  conceive  of 
in  Mk.  x,  4,  between  Our  Lord’s  rejection  of  the 
lawfulness  of  divorce  and  the  purpose  of  Moses 
in  framing  a decree  which,  as  they  think,  makes 
it  lawful  to  give  a bill  of  divorce  and  to  put  away: 
“ But  they  said : Moses  allowed  to  write  a bill  of 
divorce  and  to  put  away.”  That  this  is  undoubt- 
edly the  manner  in  which  St.  Mark  conceives  of 
these  words  of  “ Pharisees  ” is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  he,  like  St.  Matthew  (xix,  8),  makes  Jesus 
assign  to  Moses  the  purpose  of  tolerating  divorce 
for  the  hardness  of  the  Jewish  heart,  in  direct 
connection  with  the  mention  of  the  Mosaic  re- 
quirement of  a bill  of  divorce  (Mk.  x,  5,  4;  Mt. 
xix,  8,  7).  As  regards  the  additional  words  in 
Mt.  xix,  8:  “ But  from  the  beginning  it  was  not 
so,”  they  are  evidently  a clause  which  in  St.  Mat- 
thew’s eyes  corresponds  in  contents  and  emphasis 
to  the  Marcan  clause:  But  from  the  beginning 


258  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


of  creation,”  etc.  (Mk.  x,  6),  which  stands  in  our 
second  Gospel  as  a part  of  Christ’s  answer  to  the 
same  Pharisaic  contention  as  in  our  first  Gospel, 
viz.,  that  Moses  has  made  it  lawful  by  his  decree 
to  divorce  one’s  wife  by  liis  requirement  of  a bill 
of  divorce  (Cfr.  Mt.  xix,  7;  Mk.  x,  4):  it  is 
affirmed  in  both  records,  that  Moses’  decree  can 
not  have  superseded  the  Divine  Law  which  Jesus 
knows  is  recorded  in  Genesis. 

The  last  differences  disclosed  by  a comparison 
of  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  with  Mk.  x,  2-12,  are  connected 
with  their  respective  concluding  verses : 


Mt.  xix. 

9.  But  I say  to  you  that 
Whoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife 

unless  for  fornication 
and  shall  marry  an- 
other 

commits  adultery, 
and  he , one  put  away 
marrying , 
commits  adultery. 

10.  The  disciples  say  to 
Him: 

If  so  be  the  case  of  the 
man  with  the  wife, 
it  is  not  expedient  to 
marry. 


Mk.  x. 

10.  And  in  the  house 

again  the  disciples 
asked  Him 
concerning  this. 

11.  And  He  says  to  them: 
Whoever  shall  put 

away  his  wife 
and  shall  marry  an- 
other, 

commits  adultery 
against  her; 

12.  And  if  she , having  put 

away  a husband , 
shall  marry  another , 
commits  adultery. 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  259 


Mt.  xix. 


11.  But  He  said  to  them: 


All  do  not  receive  this 
saying, 


who  were  made 
eunuchs  by  men; 


12.  For  there  are  eunuchs 


but  they  to  whom  it  is 
given. 


who  were  so  born 
from  their  mother’s 
womb ; 


and  there  are  eunuchs 
who  made  them- 
selves eunuchs  for 
the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 


and  there  are  eunuchs 


He  who  can  receive 
[it],  let  him  receive 
[it]. 


Briefly  stated,  these  differences  are  as  follows: 
Christ’s  declaration  about  the  guilt  of  adultery 
entailed  by  remarriage  after  separation,  is  said 
by  St.  Matthew  to  be  addressed  to  the  Pharisees: 
“ But  I say  to  you”  (Mt.  xix,  9),  by  St.  Mark, 
to  the  disciples  (Mk.  x,  10, 11 ) . In  St.  Matthew, 
the  clause,  “ unless  for  fornication,”  is  inserted, 
and  the  last  part  of  Our  Lord’s  declaration  reads : 
“ And  he,  one  put  away  marrying,  commits  adul- 
tery,” while  in  St.  Mark  we  find,  “ And  if  she, 
having  put  away  a husband,  shall  marry  another, 
commits  adultery.”  St.  Matthew’s  remark  to  the 
disciples  concerning  celibacy  as  preferable  to  the 
married  state,  when  it  is  embraced  for  motives  of 
faith  and  under  the  impulse  of  grace,  is  not  found 
in  St.  Mark’s  parallel  passage  (Mk.  x,  2-12). 
However  considerable  these  differences  may 


260  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


appear,  they  do  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the 
thorough  historical  harmony  which  we  have  so  far 
found  to  exist  between  Mt.  xix,  3-12,  and  Mk. 
2-12. 

This  will  easily  appear  to  be  the  case  with  the 
first  of  these  differences  to  one  who  notices  that 
in  St.  Mark  (x,  10)  the  disciples  are  represented 
as  asking  Jesus  “ concerning  this.”  The  disciples 
are  concerned  about  their  Master’s  immediately 
foregoing  answer  to  “ Pharisees,”  and  this 
answer,  as  one  can  easily  see  in  reading  over  Mk. 
x,  4-8,  was  a vindication  of  Christ’s  absolute  re- 
j ection  of  divorce  in  the  light  of  the  true  purpose 
of  Moses  in  framing  his  Deuteronomic  decree. 
Now,  this  is  exactly  what  is  explicitly  intended 
by  Mt.  xix,  9,  as  we  established  in  our  discussion 
of  Mt.  xix,  3-12.  Hence,  St.  Matthew  fully 
agrees  with  St.  Mark,  when  in  Mt.  xix,  9,  he 
represents  Our  Lord  as  directing  to  “ Pharisees  ” 
a condemnation  of  divorce  which  St.  Mark  ex- 
plicitly says  to  have  been  made  again  in  private 
(“  in  the  house  again  Mk.  x,  10)  to  " the  dis- 
ciplesu”  When  St.  Matthew  inserts  the  clause, 
“ unless  for  fornication,”  in  the  condemnation  of 
divorce  repeated  in  private  to  the  disciples,  he 
knows  full  well  that  he  is  not  inserting  a ground 
for  divorce,  so  that  he  remains  in  distinct  har- 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  261 


mony  with  Mk.  x,  11,  where  this  clause  is  not 
given.  When  in  St.  Matthew  (xix,  9)  we  read: 
“ And  he,  one  put  away  marrying,  commits  adul- 
tery,” it  is  plain  that  our  first  Evangelist  states 
explicitly  what  St.  Mark  gives  implicitly  when 
he  declares : “ And  if  she,  having  put  away  a hus- 
band, shall  marry  another,  commits  adultery”; 
for  St.  Mark,  by  declaring  directly  the  wife’s  re- 
marriage after  dismissal  to  be  adulterous,  mani- 
festly implies  that  the  man  who  unites  himself  to 
her  shares  in  her  guilt  of  adultery.  It  is  true, 
finally,  that  St.  Matthew  (xix,  10-12)  records  a 
declaration  of  Jesus  concerning  the  superiority  of 
celibacy  over  the  married  state,  which  is  not  found 
in  St.  Mark’s  parallel  passage;  but  in  doing  so, 
our  first  Synoptist  gives  a confirmation  of  the 
manner  in  which  Christ’s  disciples  have  under- 
stood their  Master’s  absolute  re j ection  of  divorce, 
which  is  implied  by  St.  Mark  in  x,  10-12. 

Thus  then,  a careful  comparison  of  Mt.  xix, 
3-12,  with  Mk.  x,  2-12,  proves  that  despite  the 
assertions  of  several  Protestant  interpreters  to 
the  contrary,  these  two  passages  are,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  in  a thorough  historical  harmony. 


APPENDIX  II 

EXACT  MEANING  OF  THE  MOSAIC  DECREE 
CONCERNING  DIVORCE 

The  practice  of  divorce  among  the  Jews  has 
always  claimed  for  its  legal  foundation  the  class- 
ical text  of  Deut.  xxiv: 

1.  When  a man  taketh  a wife  and  marrieth  her 

and  it  cometh  to  pass,  if  she  find 
no  favor  in  his  eyes,  because  he  hath  found 
in  her  some  indecency  (HIH  fVny),  that  he 
writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of 
his  house, 

2.  and  she  departeth  out  of  his  house,  and  goeth 

and  becometh  another  man’s  (^IPIX  tJ^Xn), 

3.  and  the  latter  man  (ty'Xn)  hateth  her  and 

writeth  her  a bill  of  divorce,  and  delivereth 
[it]  into  her  hand,  and  putteth  her  out  of  his 
house,  or  if  the  latter  man  (t£V>Xn)  who  took 
her  as  his  wife  die; 

4.  her  former  husband  (n^JD)  who  put  her  away 

is  not  allowed  to  take  her  again  to  be  his 
wife,  after  that  she  is  defiled  (HXDftn)  for 
this  is  an  abomination  before  Yahweh,  and 
thou  shalt  not  cause  to  sin  the  land  which 
Yahweh,  thy  God,  giveth  thee  [as]  an 
inheritance. 


263 


264  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Their  traditional  interpretation  of  this  decree  is 
to  the  effect  that  Moses  left  it  to  a man’s  will  to 
repudiate  his  wife.  The  husband’s  action  is  made 
lawful,  not  by  the  cause  for  which  he  secures  and 
gives  a bill  of  divorce,  but  by  the  very  fact  that 
he  delivers  that  document  to  his  wife.  He  has 
thereby  signified  his  irrevocable  intention  to  sever 
the  marriage  tie,  and  in  virtue  of  this  act  no  adul- 
tery can  taint  remarriage  after  dismissal.  In 
Christ’s  time  this  was  the  sense  of  Moses’  decree, 
which  was  defended  by  the  school  of  Hillel,  and 
officially  proclaimed  in  the  synagogues  as  the 
undoubted  meaning  of  Israel’s  lawgiver,  because 
handed  down  by  the  tradition  of  the  Elders: 

Mt.  v,  31. 

It  was  said  also : 

Whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife 
let  him  give  her  a bill  of  divorce. 

So  construed,  the  words  of  Moses  supplied  the 
Jews  with  a convenient  and,  as  they  thought,  a 
safe  means  of  severing  the  marriage  tie;  they  also 
left  the  wife’s  fate  at  the  mercy  of  the  man,  and 
treated  as  lawful  hasty  and  groundless  divorces.1 
The  bill  of  divorce  was  regarded  as  a mere  for- 

1 According  to  the  Jewish  lawyer  Amram,  “ the  practice  of 
hasty  and  groundless  divorce  was  allowed  by  the  Law.”  ( The 
Jewish  Law  of  Divorce p.  31,  London,  1897.) 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  265 


mality ; 1 and  the  law  of  Moses,  the  decree  of  a 
divinely-inspired  lawgiver,  was  turned  into  one  of 
the  loosest  divorce  laws  ever  promulgated.  Evi- 
dently, this  was  not  an  explanation  of  the  true 
sense  of  the  Mosaic  Law ; but  one  of  those  numerj 
ous  Pharisaic  perversions  of  it,  which,  because  of 
Jewish  tradition,  “ made  void  the  commandment 
of  God  ” (Cfr.  Mt.  xv,  3,  6).  And  it  was  high 
time,  that  Jesus  should  come  and  authoritatively 
proclaim  in  the  name  of  the  Divine  righteousness 
the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  tie,  and  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  in  his  Deuteronomic  decree 
Moses*  had  qualified  as  adulterous  the  remarriage 
after  dismissal,  even  for  the  cause  of  fornication. 
In  so  doing,  Christ  fulfilled  the  Law  to  its  “ yod  ” 
or  “ tittle.”  He  also  fulfilled  “ the  Prophets  ” 
(Cfr.  Mt.  v,  17),  entering  the  same  protest 
against  Jewish  divorces,  as  had  been  entered  cen- 
turies before  by  the  prophet  Malachias  (ii,  13 
sqq.)  : “You  cover  the  altar  of  Yahweh  with 
tears,  with  weeping  and  with  sighing.  . . . And 
you  say:  For  what  cause?  Because  Yahweh  hath 
been  witness  between  thee  and  the  wife  of  thy 
youth,  whom  thou  hast  despised:  yet,  she  is  thy 

1 In  this  connection  Allen  pertinently  writes:  “No  Jew  would 
regard  Deut.  xxiv,  1 sqq.,  as  anything  else  than  a Mosaic  com- 
mand to  adopt  certain  forms  in  cases  of  divorce.”  On  St.  Mat- 
thew, p.  204.  New  York,  1907.) 


266  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


partner,  and  the  wife  of  thy  covenant.  . . . For 
I hate  putting  away,  says  Yahweh,  the  God  of 
Israel.’, 

And  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  when  Our 
Lord  interpreted  as  denoting  adultery  the  ex- 
pression, -on  nnjj,  “ some  indecency,”  lit- 
erally, “ the  nakedness  of  a thing,”  in  Deut. 
xxiv,  1,  His  adversaries  had  really  nothing  to 
object  to  His  interpretation.  Not  only  was  this 
the  meaning  of  that  expression  according  to  their 
oral  law  (Cfr.  Talmud,  Gittin , ix,  10),  but  this 
was  its  true  meaning  in  Moses’  decree.  In  this 
decree  there  is  evidently  question  of  a ground  for 
repudiation  as  advanced  by  the  man  who  has 
consummated  marriage  with  his  wife  (r6jD), 
and  who  says  that  she  does  not  find  favor  in  his 
eyes,  because  he  has  found  in  her  something  on 
account  of  which  he  feels  bound  to  put  her  away. 
The  reason  to  which  he  appeals  is  naturally  the 
highest  that  he  can  testify  against  her:  the 
undoubted  proof  of  her  conjugal  unfaithfulness. 
In  such  case  Israel’s  lawgiver,  as  the  man  knows, 
can  not  deny  him  the  practice  of  divorce,  unless 
he  wants  to  rule  it  out  altogether.  And  in  fact 
Moses,  feeling  unable  to  root  out  divorce  alto- 
gether, tolerates  its  practice  in  such  a case.  He 
describes  the  putting  away  by  means  of  a bill  of 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  267 


divorce  as  followed  by  the  wife’s  second  union 
with  “ another  man,”  whom  he  never  calls  the 
by2,  “ the  husband  ” of  the  dismissed  wife. 
He  evidently  treats  the  marriage  tie  as  perse- 
vering until  the  consummation  of  her  conjugal 
intercourse  with  that  “ other  man,”  since  he 
speaks  of  the  first  man  as  her  “ husband  ” (by 2), 
and  even  after  that  conjugal  intercourse  has 
taken  place,  since  he  qualifies  as  adulterous 
(nKDBn),  such  action  on  the  part  of  the  dis- 
missed wife.  In  the  eyes  of  Israel’s  lawgiver 
nothing  can  sever  the  marriage  tie  before  the  God 
of  Israel,  “ for  this  is  an  abomination  before  Yah- 
weh  ” (Deut.  xxiv,  4) , words  which  have  an  echo 
in  Malachias’  declaration:  “ For  I hate  putting 
away,  says  Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel.” 

Such  is  the  natural  meaning  of  the  words  of 
Moses’  decree ; and  it  is  in  vain  that  certain  Prot- 
estant writers  assert  that  the  words,  “ the  naked- 
ness of  a thing,”  can  not  refer  to  adultery,  be- 
cause adultery  was  punishable  with  death  accord- 
ing to  Levit.  xx,  10,  and  Deut.  xxii,  22.  In 
Levit.  xx,  10,  the  death  penalty  is  simply  pro- 
nounced against  the  adulterer  and  the  adulteress ; 
in  Deut.  xxii,  22,  the  same  penalty  is  declared 
against  the  adulterer  and  the  adulteress,  and  is 
specified  as  to  be  inflicted  on  the  culprits  when 


268  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


they  have  been  found  in  the  act  of  committing 
the  crime.  The  second  passage,  therefore,  ex- 
plains under  what  precise  circumstances  the 
Mosaic  Law,  formulated  in  Levit.  xx,  10,  is  to  be 
applied;  so  that  the  death  penalty  against  adul- 
tery is  to  be  considered  as  prescribed  by  the  Law 
only  in  the  case  of  the  guilty  parties  being  caught 
in  the  actual  commission  of  the  crime  legislated 
against  (Cfr.  St.  John’s  episode  concerning  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery,  viii,  3,  4).  In  view  of 
this,  it  is  plain  that  in  the  Deuteronomic  decree 
(xxiv,  1-4)  the  words  “ because  he  hath  found  in 
her  ‘erwath  dabhar  (the  nakedness  of  a tiling) 
may,  as  indeed  they  do,  refer  to  adultery.  The 
lawgiver  has  manifestly  in  mind,  not  a wife  taken 
in  adultery,  but  one  in  whom  her  husband  has 
found  proofs  of  her  conjugal  unfaithfulness, 
“ because  he  hath  found  in  her  the  nakedness  of  a 
thing.” 


FORM  OF  A JEWISH  BILL  OF 
DIVORCE  1 


The  following  form  of  a Jewish  bill  of  divorce 
is  given  by  the  celebrated  Spanish  Rabbi  Mai- 
monides  (1135-1204  a.d.).  In  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury it  was  already  known  as  a very  ancient  form. 
It  is  the  one  in  use  down  to  the  present  day. 

“ On  the day  of  the  week,  the day 

of  the  month  of in  the  year since  the 

creation  of  the  world,  the  era  according  to  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  reckon  in  this  place,  to  wit, 

the  town  of I the  son  of ( and 

by  whatever  other  name  I or  my  father  may  be 
known,  and  my  town  and  his  town)  thus  deter- 
mine, being  of  sound  mind  and  under  no  con- 
straint; and  I do  release  and  send  away  and 

put  aside  thee daughter  of of  the 

town  of (and  by  whatever  other  name  or 

surname  thou  and  thy  father  are  known,  and  thy 

1 See  specimens  of  a Jewish  bill  of  divorce  in  the  original 
Hebrew,  in  “Jewish  Encyclopedia,”  vol.  iv,  pp.  624,625,  New  York, 
1903;  and  in  Amram,  “The  Jewish  Law  of  Divorce London, 
1897. 


269 


270  CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


town  and  his  town) , who  hast  been  my  wife  from 
time  past  hitherto;  and  hereby  I do  release  thee 
and  send  thee  away  and  put  thee  aside  that  thou 
mayest  have  control  and  power  over  thyself,  from 
now  and  hereafter,  to  go  to  be  married  to  any 
man  whom  thou  desirest,  and  no  man  shall  hinder 
thee  (in  my  name)  from  this  day  forever.  And 
thou  art  permitted  (to  be  married)  to  any  man. 
And  these  present  shall  he  unto  thee  from  me 
a bill  of  Divorce,  a document  of  release  and  a 
letter  of  freedom,  according  to  the  Law  of  Moses 
and  Israel.” 

the  son  of a witness. 

the  son  of a witness. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


(Catholic  Authors  are  marked  with  an  asterisk) 

I.  SPECIAL  WORKS 

Allen,  A Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew.  (New  York, 
1907.) 

Amram,  The  Jewish  Law  of  Divorce.  (London,  1897.) 

Bergel,  Die  Eheverhaeltnisse  der  alten  Juden.  (Leip- 
sig,  1881.) 

Buchholz,  Die  Familie  in  rechtlicher  u.  moral.  Bezie- 
hung  nach  mosaisch-talmudisch.  Lehre.  (Breslau, 
1867.) 

*Calmet,  Dissertation  sur  les  Mariages  des  Hebreux. 
(t.  8 de  la  Bible  d’ Avignon.) 

*Carriere,  De  Matrimonio.  (Paris,  1837.) 

*Cigoi,  die  Unaufloesbarkeit  der  christlichen  Ehe. 
(Paderborn,  1895.) 

*Corluy,  Spicilegium  dogmatico-Biblicum.  (Gand, 
1884.) 

*Drach,  Du  Divorce  dans  la  Synagogue.  (Rome, 
1840.) 

Duschak,  Das  mosaisch-talmudische  Eherecht. 
(Vienna,  1864.) 


271 


272  CHRISTS  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE 


Frankel,  Grundlinien  des  mosaisch-talmudischen 
Eherechts.  (Breslau,  1860.) 

Greve,  Die  Ehescheidung  nach  der  Lehre  des  N.  T. 
(Leipsig,  1873.) 

*Horoy,  Manage.  (Paris,  1877.) 

*Hug,  De  Conjugii  Christiani  Vinculo  indissolubili. 
(Freiburg,  1816.) 

*Knabenbauer,  In  Matthaeum  (Paris,  1892-1893)  ; 
In  Marcum  (Paris,  1891)  ; In  Lucam  (Paris,  1896). 

*Lagrange,  Evangile  selon  St.  Marc.  (Paris,  1911.) 
Levy,  La  Famille  dans  l’Antiquite  Israelite.  (Paris, 
1905.) 

*Maas,  The  Gospel  According  to  St.  Matthew.  (St. 
Louis,  1898.) 

Mielziner,  The  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce. 
(New  York,  1901.) 

Montefiore,  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  (London,  1909.) 

Morgan,  The  Doctrine  and  Law  of  Marriage,  Adul- 
tery, and  Divorce.  (Oxford,  1826.) 

*Palmieri,  Tractatus  de  Matrimonio  Christiano. 
(Rome,  1880.) 

*Perrone,  De  Matrimonio  Christiano.  (Liege,  1862.) 

*Pesch,  Praelectiones  Dogmaticae,  tom.  vii.  (Freiburg 
i.  Breisgau,  1900.) 

Plummer,  An  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Gospel 
According  to  St.  Matthew.  (New  York,  1910.) 

*Roskovany,  De  Matrimonio  in  Ecclesia  Catholica, 
tom.  ii.  (Augsburg,  1840.) 

Saalschutz,  Das  mosaische  Recht.  (Berlin,  1853.) 


CHRIST’S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE  273 


*Schanz,  Commcntar  ucber  das  Evangelium  des  hi. 
Matthaeus  (Freiburg,  1879)  ; des  hi.  Markus 
(Freiburg,  1881);  des  hi.  Lukas  (Tuebingen, 
1883.) 

Stubbe,  Die  Ehe  im  A.  T.  (Jena,  1886.) 

Tyson,  The  Teaching  of  Our  Lord  as  to  the  Indissolu- 
bility of  Marriage.  (Sewanee,  1909.) 

Weill,  La  Femme  Juive.  (Paris,  1874.) 

Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus;  Eng.  trans.  (New 
York,  1892.) 

Wilkins,  The  History  of  Divorce  and  Remarriage. 
(New  York,  1910.) 

Woolsey,  Essay  on  Divorce.  (New  York,  1882.) 

*Zenger,  Neuer  Verzuch  einer  genauen  Erklaerung 
der  Stellen  der  hi.  Schrift,  welche  von  der  Eheschei- 
dung  handeln.  (Straubing,  1819.) 

II.  GENERAL  WORKS. 

Cyclopedias  and  Dictionaries:  Cheyne;  Hambur- 

ger; Hastings;  *Herbermann  (Catholic  Encyclo- 
pedia) ; *Hergenroether-Kaulen ; Herzog-Hauck ; 
*Jaugey;  Singer  (Jewish  Encyclopedia)  ; *Vacant- 
Mangenot ; * Vigoroux ; etc. 

Works  on  Biblical  Archaeology:  Buhl  (French 

trans.  *De  Cintre)  ; Benzinger ; *Hanneberg ; 
*Jahn;  Keil;  Nowack;  ^Schaefer;  *Schegg; 
*Scholz. 


I.  INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


A 

Abomination,  18,  78,  224,  267. 
Adultery,  5,  18,  20,  21,  24,  30, 

33,  40,  54,  64,  95,  162,  etc. 
not  a ground  for  divorce,  31, 

40,  179,  206,  218,  232  sq., 
243,  249. 

does  not  dissolve  the  mar- 
riage tie,  5,  237. 
penalty  of  remarriage,  13,  24, 
54,  68,  72,;76,  82,  88,  90  sq., 
115,  149,174, 176,  178,  184, 
243,  249. 

Alford,  H.,  146,  187. 

Allen,  W.  C.,  187,  233,  265. 
Antipas,  Herod,  70. 

Antithesis,  27  sq.,  153  sqq.,  159 
sq.,  163,  216. 

Aramaic,  164 

Arcanum  (Encyclical),  147. 
Assimilation,  187,  237. 
Athenagoras,  240. 

B 

Beyschlag,  W.,  106. 

Bill  of  divorce,  7,  18,  80,  174. 
required  by  Moses,  17,  30, 

34,  36  sq.,  50,  54,  56,  165, 
sq.,  169. 

Brassac,  A.,  96. 


Brother,  i.e.,  a Christian,  25, 
112,  127,  142  sq. 

Burkitt,  E.  C.,  70. 


C 

Catholic,  Church,  5,  13,  14,  42, 
71,  73,  119,  150,  240,  243, 
250. 

doctrine  concerning  divorce, 
13,  64,  71,  93,  150, 180,  185, 
240,  243,  250. 
theologians,  6,  147. 

Cause,  for  every,  33  sq.,  204, 
209,  219,  249,  252. 
Celibacy,  41,  241  sq.,  245  sq., 
259,  261. 

Christian  marriage,  13,  24,  74, 

115,  119. 

copy  of  Christ’s  union  with 
the  Church,  24,  118. 
Christ’s  rejection  of  divorce,  18, 
34,  39,  52,  59,  63,  92,  101, 
106,  149,  179  sq.,  184,  191, 
195  sq.,  207,  209,  218,  240, 
249. 

authoritative  saying,  28,  62, 
155,  206. 

Law  regarding  marriage,  6,  26. 
union  with  the  Church,  24, 

116,  118,  122. 


276 


INDEX 


Christ’s  private  declaration  to 
the  disciples,  19,  65  sq., 
74,  260. 

Church,  5,  13,  14,  19,  24,  31,  69. 
her  doctrine  concerning 
divorce,  13,  31, 42. 

Clause,  exceptive,  27,  31,  34, 
91. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  240. 

Command  of  the  Lord,  14,  22, 
97  sqq.,  103,  111,  114,  122, 
131,  146,  150. 

Controversy,  39,  199,  201,  203, 
219,  240. 

Conversion,  134,  143. 

Corinthians,  21,  96  sq.,  115. 

Comely,  R.,  101,128, 132. 

Creator’s  will  regarding  mar- 
riage, 18,  37,  57,  73,  191 
sqq. 

D 

Decree,  of  Trent,  5. 
of  Moses,  16,  50,  etc. 

Defilement,  18, 30, 134, 173, 178, 
184. 

Deuteronomy,  text  of,  concern- 
ing divorce,  16,  29,  49,  etc. 

Diatessaron,  237. 

Dillmann,  A.,  192. 

Disciples,  19,  33,  40  sq.,  44,  65 
sqq.,  71,  74,  159,  175,  179, 
183,  202,  241  sqq.,  258  sqq. 

Dismissal,  forbidden  by  St. 
Paul,  22,  25,  112  sq.,  132 
sqq. 

Dissolubility  of  non-Christian 
marriage,  see  Pauline 
Privilege. 

Divorce,  5,  19,  31,  35,  39,  41, 
46  sq.,  53  sqq.,  108. 


Divorce,  rejected  by  Jesus,  17, 
19,  35,  37,  41,  52  sq. 
tolerated  by  Moses,  37,  52, 
57  sq.,  73,  225. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  49,  51. 

E 

Edersheim,  A.,  70, 133, 158, 170. 
Edwards,  T.  C.,  106. 

Elders,  28,  202,  212,  228,  249. 
Enslaved,  25,  113,  122,  142,  144. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  116. 
Eunuchs,  33,  41,  187,  244,  246, 
259. 

Exceptive  clause,  27,  31,  34,  87, 
179,  185. 

F 

Flesh,  Husband  and  Wife,  one, 
32,  52,  57,  59,  81,  118,  122. 
Fornication,  27,  31,  35,  39,  88 
sqq.,  149,  162,  etc. 

G 

Gibson,  J.  Monro,  151. 

Greek  words: 
ayafios,  22. 
airoXvav,  76,  163. 
d<£«W,  22,  101,  102. 

yeyafxrjKocriVj  22,  99,  126,  129. 

Sdro),  163,  167. 
tppeOrj,  155. 
rjKovcraTEj  155. 

Atyw,  130  sq. 

Aoyos  7 ropvctds,  31,  181, 185. 
\ol7tols  (tois  3c),  126  sqq. 
p.oL\eveLvf  76  sq.,  85,  187. 
7rapayyeAAo>,  22,  99,  130  sq. 
X^piZav,  22,  101,  102,  104, 
113,  140  sq.,  143. 
Greenstone,  J.  H.,  56. 


INDEX 


277 


H 

Hardness  of  heart,  17,  32,  37, 
51  sq.,  56  sq.,  73,  80,  89, 

225,  254. 

Harmony  of  Jesus  with  Moses, 
17,  53,  etc. 

Hastings,  102. 

Hawkins,  J.  C.,  85. 

Hebrew  terms: 

172,  267. 

30,  162,  173,  176, 

267. 

;ro,  214. 

121  nny,  167,  174,  184,  266. 
rbv,  214. 

Herod  Antipas,  70. 

Herodotus,  102. 

Hillel,  51,  160,  199  sq.,  202, 
234  sq.,  264. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  92,  180;  O., 
61. 

Holy,  25,  136. 

Hummelauer,  von,  49. 

Husband  and  Wife,  6,  13,  24, 
58,  64,  68,  73,118,  174,  189, 
208  sq.,  232,  243. 
one  flesh,  32,  52,  57,  89,  117, 
122,  186,  192,  194  sq.,  209, 

226. 

I 

Incontinency,  24,  109. 
Indissolubility  of  Christian  mar- 
riage, 5,  13,  24,  103  sqq. 
Interpretation,  Jewish,  of  Moses’ 
decree,  17,  34,  37,  155, 
169,  183,  204,  208,  228, 
264. 


J 

Jacquier,  E.,  43,  96. 

Jesus: 

His  public  discussion  with 
Pharisees,  16. 

His  private  declaration  to  the 
Disciples,  19,  65  sqq.,  74., 
see  Christ;  Question;  etc. 

K 

Keil,  K.  F.,  54,  179. 

Knabenbauer,  J.,  70,  92,  96, 
186  sq.,  246. 

L 

Lagrange,  M.  J.,  43,  70. 

Law,  Mosaic,  concerning  di- 
vorce, 16,  29,  etc. 

Oral,  158,  225. 
perpetuity  of  the,  79. 

Loisy,  A.,  235. 

Lord’s  command,  22,  97  sqq., 
103,  110  sqq.,  Ill,  114, 
132, 138,  145  sq.,  150. 

Luke,  St.,  19,  78,  85  sq.,  91, 151. 
his  omission  of  the  exceptive 
clause,  87  sqq. 

M 

Maimonides,  M.,  269. 

Male  and  Female,  32,  52,  58,  62, 
191,  226. 

Mark,  St.,  15,  21,  43,  48,  60, 
62,  91,  151,  252,  255  sq., 
259  sqq. 

Gospel  of,  43,  61,  67,  96,  151, 
250. 

Marriage,  6,  24,  40,  etc. 


278 


INDEX 


Marriage,  Christian,  indissolu- 
ble, 24,  146;  a copy  of 
Christ’s  union  with  the 
Church,  118,  122. 

Married,  the,  14,  22,  23,  25  sq., 
98  sqq.,  103,  109  sqq.,  122, 
129. 

Matthew,  St.,  6,  21,  30,  38,  83, 
86,  91,  162  sq.,  198,  200, 
204,  255  sq.,  259  sqq. 
exceptive  clause  in,  27,  31,  34, 
151  sqq. 

Menzies,  Allan,  46,  55. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.,  100,  102,  151, 
187,  200,  234,  237. 

Mixed  marriage,  26,  125,  127 
sq.,  132,  134, 137, 140. 

Morgan,  H.  D.,  238. 

Moses,  16,  17,  35,  38  sq., 
46,  48,  50  sqq.,  54  sq., 
58,  5,  168,  204,  215,  220, 
etc. 

see  Divorce;  Decree;  Deut- 
eronomy. 

Moulton  and  Geden,  85. 

N 

Nestle,  E.,  240. 

New  Testament,  5,  15,  26,  31, 
33,  42,  102,  149,  185,  250. 

New  York  Review,  6. 

O 

Omceteleuton,  187,  237. 

Oral  Law,  158,  225. 

P 

Parallelism,  101,  126. 

Parenthetical  remark  of  St. 
Paul,  100,  103  sqq. 


Paul,  St.,  21  sq.,  24,  26,  96,  100 
sq.,  104,  109,  116,  127,  130, 
141,  144,  146,  etc. 

Pauline  Privilege,  24,  26,  121 
sqq.,  145. 

Peter,  St.,  43. 

Pfleiderer,  O.,  107. 

Pharisees,  16,  20,  28,  33,  36  sq., 
39,  45,  47,  51  sqq.,  57,  60, 
65,  157  sq.,  178,  202,  205, 
212,  216,  260. 

Privilege,  Pauline,  24,  26,  100 
sq.,  141,  145. 

Purpose  of  Moses’  decree,  ac- 
cording to  Pharisees,  35, 
216  sqq.,  228,  231, 
according  to  Jesus,  37,  39, 
222  sqq.,  231,  260. 

Purves,  G.  T.,  107. 

Q 

Question,  put  to  Jesus  by 
Pharisees,  16,  35,  37,  45, 
65,  198  sqq.,  205  sq.,  208, 
212  sqq.,  252,  256. 
put  to  Pharisees  by  Jesus,  16, 
48,  255. 

R 

Rabbis,  170,  214. 

Reconciliation,  56,  237. 

Rejection  of  divorce  by  Jesus, 
17, 19,21,35,  37,  etc. 

Remarriage,  13,  18,  24,  69, 
77,  81  sq.,  86,  91,  95,  108, 
115,  145,  174,  178,  188, 
226,  228,  232,  240,  243. 

Righteousness,  28,  30,  35,  37, 
158,  178,  202,  204  sq., 
207  sq.,  209,  214  sqq., 
219  sq.,  226,  249,  256. 


INDEX 


279 


Rose,  V.,  68. 

Rule,  traditional,  37,  183  sq., 
204,  220,  226. 

S 

Saying,  33,  160,  163,  175,  179, 
202,  206,  216,  219,  228,  246. 

Schaff,  Ph.,  118. 

Scribes,  28,  63,  157,  178,  202, 
216. 

Scripture,  Holy,  62. 

Separation,  13,  24,  31,  101,  107 
sq.,  Ill,  113,  179,  188,  232, 
240,  243. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  35,  212 . 

Shailer  Matthews,  107. 

Shammai,  40,  51,  160,  199  sq., 
202,  234  sq. 

Sister,  i.e.,  a Christian  woman, 
25,  112  sq.,  127,  142  sq. 

Soden,  von,  107. 

Stanley,.  A.  P.,  102. 

Stevens,  G.  B.,  107. 

Synagogues,  29,  155,  159,  164, 
264. 

Synoptic,  73,  77,  79,  82  sq., 
91  sq.,  95. 

T 

Tatian,  237. 

Tempting  question,  32  sq.,  45, 
65,  198  sqq.,  219,  252. 

Tertullian,  240. 

Tischendorf,  C.,  240. 


Toussaint,  C.,  102. 

Tradition,  Christian,  14,  22, 
100,  106,  119,  etc. 

Jewish,  16,  29,  34,  38  sq., 
155,  157,  162,  218,  etc. 

Trent,  Council  of,  5,  147. 

U 

Unclean,  25,  136. 

Unfaithfulness,  7,  161,  175,  177, 
179,  199,  225. 

Unless  for  fornication,  187,  211 
sqq.,  240,  249,  259. 

Unmarried,  the,  23  sq.,  26,  99, 
109  sq.,  126  sq.,  129. 


V 

Virginity,  21. 

Vulgate,  187. 

W 

Weiss,  B.,  46, 179,  207,  240. 
Wendt,  II.  II.,  59. 

Westcott  and  Hort,  240. 

Widows,  23  sqq.,  99,  109  sq., 
126,  129. 

Winer,  G.  B.,  141. 


Y 

Yod  or  Tittle,  28  sq.,  80,  157 
sq.,  171,  178,  182,  202  sq., 
212,  216,  230  sq. 


II.  INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURAL  PASSAGES 


PASSAGES 

PAGES 

Genesis : 

i,  27: 

34,  37,  39,  62,  191 

ii,  24: 

sq.,  195,  233,  256. 
34,  37,  39,  62,  79, 

v,  1: 

81,  192,  195,  209, 
233,  256. 

192. 

Exodus: 

xix,  15: 

247. 

xx,  13: 

155. 

Leviticus : 

xviii,  20: 

54, 162, 173. 

xx,  10: 

267. 

Numbers: 

v,  13, 14, 

20:54, 162,173. 

Deuteronomy: 

v,  17: 

155. 

v,  21: 

215. 

xxii,  22: 

267. 

xxiv,  1-4:  16,  29,  32,  49  sq. 

xxiv,  1: 

53  sqq.,  81,  160 
sq.,  263  sqq. 

34,  49,  60,  218. 

xxiv,  2: 

165. 

xxiv,  3: 

165,  169. 

xxiv,  4: 

54, 162,  267. 

I Kings  [Samuel]: 


xxi,  4:  247. 

Malachias: 
ii,  13  sqq.:  265,  267. 

St.  Matthew: 
v,  17:  80,265. 

v,  17-20:  158  sq. 


PASSAGES  PAGES 

St.  Matthew: 


v,  21-22: 

27,  154. 

v,  27-28: 

27,  154 

sq., 

214. 

v,  31: 

75,  152, 

162, 

165, 

204,  206. 

v,  31-32 

27,  31,  33, 

151  ! 

sqq., 

205. 

v,  32: 

35,  36  sq 

.,  39, 

, 54, 

74,  82, 

152, 

162 

sqq.,  206  sq. 

v,  33-37: 

27,  154 

v,  38-39: 

27,  154. 

v,  43-48: 

27,  154. 

vii,  29: 

63. 

xi,  12-13: 

78. 

xii,  2-3: 

203,  208. 

xv,  3-6: 

265. 

xvi,  1: 

46. 

xix,  1-9: 

79. 

xix,  3-12: 

6,  31  sq, 

.,  40, 

. 45, 

151  sqq 

.,205 

,251 

sqq. 

xix,  3-7: 

75, 189, 193. 

xix,  4: 

235. 

xix,  4-6: 

196,  208, 

210, 

254. 

xix,  6: 

34,  39, 

89, 

102, 

194. 

xix,  7: 

212,  222 

, 257  sq. 

xix,  8: 

89,  227, 

233, 

255, 

257. 

xix,  8-9: 

220  sq., 

232, 

237. 

xix,  9: 

38,  74,  85 

',  89, 

232, 

237. 


280 


INDEX 


281 


PASSAGES 


St.  Matthew: 

xix,  10:  40,  241  sqq.,  244. 

xix,  11-12:  41,  244  sqq. 
xxii,  17-18:  46. 
xxii,  36-36:  46. 
xxviii,  19  sq.:  71. 

St.  Mark: 

i,  22:  63. 

ii,  27:  61. 

vii,  1-13:  16. 

vii,  9-13:  203. 

viii,  11:  46. 

x,  1:  70. 

x,  2:  75. 

x,  2-9:  60,  95. 

x,  2-12:  15,  43  sq.,  71,  73, 
79,  82  sq.,  95, 
116,  149,  124, 

251  sqq; 

x,  3:  16,47. 

x,  4:  16,  48  sq.,  256 

sq. 

x,  6:  17,51,89. 

x,  6-9:  51. 

x,  6-8:  18,  57. 

x,  6:  57,  193. 

x,  7:  256. 

x,  8:  89. 

x,  9:  18, 89, 102  sq. 

x,  10-12:  63  sq.,  95, 255. 
x,  11-12:  87. 
x,  12:  69  sqq. 

xii,  14-16:  46. 

St.  Luke: 
iv,  32:  63. 

x,  26:  46. 

xi,  16:  46. 

xvi,  14-16:  20. 


PASSAGES  PAGES 

St.  Luke: 

xvi,  14-17 : 21 , 78  sq.,  82. 
xvi,  16:  46,  78. 

xvi,  17:  80. 

xvi,  18:  19,  20  sq.,  74  sqq., 

81  sqq.,  95,  116, 
124,  149. 
xvi,  29,  31:  79. 
xx,  22-23:  46. 

St.  John: 
viii,  3,  4:  268. 

Romans : 

vii,  2-3:  24,115,122. 

vii,  3:  115. 

vii,  7:  215. 

I Corinthians: 

v,  12,  13:  134. 

vii,  1:  96. 

vii,  8-9:  23  sq.,  109  sqq. 
vii,  10:  14,23,85,118. 

vii,  10-11:  22,  24,  71,  96  sqq., 
112, 138,150. 
vii,  11:  23,102. 

vii,  12-16:  24  sq.,  112  sqq., 
123  sqq.,  138  sqq. 
150. 

vii,  39:  24,114,122. 

viii,  1:  96. 

xii,  1 : 96. 

xvi,  1,  12 : 96. 

II  Corinthians: 

vi,  14  sqq.:  127. 

Ephesians: 

v,  22-33:  24,  116  sqq.,  122. 
Colossians: 

iv,  14:  96. 

I Timothy: 

iii,  16:  14. 


III.  INDEX  OF  JEWISH  AUTHORITIES 


Amram,  D.  W.,  207,  264, 
269. 

Ilillel,  51,  160,  199  sq.,  202,  234 
sq.,  264. 

Jewish  Encyclopedia,  56,  269. 
Josephus,  170,  175,  204. 

Life,  170,  204. 

Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  70, 
170  sq.,  183,190,  204. 
Mielziner,  M.,  133,  209. 
Montefiore,  C.  G.,  209. 

Philo,  170,  204. 


Shammai,  40,  51,  160,  199  sq., 
202,  234  sq.,  242. 

Schwab,  M.,  169  sq.,  183, 192. 
Talmud,  169,  183,  190,  192, 
199,  214,  226,  246,  266. 
Talmudic  Treatises: 

Gittin,  199,  214,  266. 

Nedarim,  226. 

Qiddushin,  169,  190. 

Sota,  183,  199. 

Yebamoth,  192,  246. 

Yoma,  170. 


PRINTED  BY  BENZIGER  BROTHERS,  NEW  YORK, 


. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


